ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

TRANSPORT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Mr Speaker: On Question 1, I call Chi Onwurah. Not here.

Congestion (Roads)

Therese Coffey: What plans he has to relieve congestion on roads.

David Rutley: What plans he has to relieve congestion on roads.

Robert Goodwill: Before I answer the question, I should explain that, as you and the Opposition Front Benchers will be aware, Mr Speaker, the Secretary of State is unable to attend Transport questions this morning because of his duties attending on Her Majesty the Queen in Derbyshire.
	Road investment is central to our long-term economic plan. We are spending more than £24 billion on strategic roads between 2010 and 2021. A further £7.4 billion will be spent on local roads in the next Parliament, together with £1.5 billion of funding from the local growth fund that was announced on Monday. That will bring forward much needed schemes such as the Bury St Edmunds eastern relief road in Suffolk. All the schemes are designed to relieve congestion and open up growth across the country.

Therese Coffey: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. I welcome the growth deal for the New Anglia local enterprise partnership, which will help to relieve the congestion on many roads. May I make a bid for support for the A12 in Suffolk Coastal, and particularly for the stretches of the road that will be used heavily by Sizewell C construction traffic? There is the possibility of a four-villages bypass involving Stratford St Andrew and Farnham.

Robert Goodwill: I know that my hon. Friend is disappointed that the four-villages bypass was not included on this occasion, but we are still looking at that possibility. Indeed, I was in Norfolk and Suffolk last week undertaking —dare I say it—a “tour d’East Anglia”. I looked at the A12 and the A47, which are greatly in need of improvement.

David Rutley: I welcome the recent growth deal announcement and the £16.4 million of funding that will be put to good use on the Poynton relief road. Does my hon. Friend agree that that will not only reduce traffic congestion for the residents in Poynton, but enhance the strategic links to Macclesfield’s science community?

Robert Goodwill: Yes, that is very good news for the residents of Poynton, Macclesfield and the whole of east Cheshire. The scheme to link the A6 to the Manchester airport relief road, to which the Government are contributing £165 million, will improve access to the significant employment opportunities that are being developed at the Manchester airport city enterprise zone.

Richard Burden: Listening to the Minister, one would never guess that the National Audit Office has warned that the Government’s approach is not good enough to fix the pothole epidemic on our local roads, which is aggravating congestion; that the Local Government Association has expressed the concern that the Government’s roads policy will lead to gridlock on local roads; that bus use outside London is down, not up; or that British Cycling has expressed disappointment that the Government are not providing the leadership that is needed to get people out of their cars and to walk or cycle. This is not jam tomorrow; it is traffic jams today. Is it not time that the Minister got a grip?

Robert Goodwill: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman can keep a straight face as he says that. We are tripling road investment in the Highways Agency’s infrastructure. We have substantially increased the investment for local authorities to address the pothole problem. More money was announced in the Budget and following the bad weather at Christmas. This Government realise that we should be improving our infrastructure and mending our roads. It is not only the roof that the Labour party did not mend in government; it did not mend the roads either.

Simon Burns: Does my hon. Friend accept that the A12 through Essex and on to the ports and the hinterland of East Anglia is severely congested, and that the best way to relieve that congestion would be to turn it into a motorway? Will he update the House on what is being done to evaluate that proposition, following the answer that the Secretary of State gave to me two Question Times ago?

Robert Goodwill: The A12 is certainly featuring prominently today. My right hon. Friend is a great exponent of the proposal to upgrade the A12 to motorway status. The last time he raised this matter, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said:
	“My right hon. Friend makes an interesting suggestion. No doubt he will pursue that argument with me and the authorities on a number of occasions to come.”—[Official Report, 20 March 2014; Vol. 577, c. 892.]
	This is just one more of those occasions.

David Heath: I know the Secretary of State visited the west country a few weeks ago. Did he come back as committed as I have been for 30 years to finally doing something to improve the iconic A303?

Robert Goodwill: I had the pleasure of travelling down the A30-A303 corridor with another colleague who has an interest in that matter. A number of areas along that road were pointed out to me, including the difficult Stonehenge area and the Blackdown hills area, which is more difficult for another reason, and where there is some low-hanging fruit that I hope we can address. That is one of six key routes that we have identified as needing improvement, and I suspect that my hon. Friend will have to wait for the autumn statement to hear further news.

Barry Sheerman: Does the Minister agree that congestion on our roads is the one thing saving our safety record from plunging even further—as he knows, it has now plunged below that of Sweden? Many more young people are being killed on motorcycles under his watch. Does he think it time we went back to targets on reduction so that we can look after people on the roads?

Robert Goodwill: I have only one target for casualties on the road, and that is a target of zero. The UK, along with Sweden, has the safest roads not only in Europe but in the world. Although it was disappointing to see a small increase in the number of motorcycle fatalities last year, in all other areas we have seen improvements owing to a number of factors, not least the investment that we put into better roads in this country.

Mark Pritchard: One way of reducing congestion in the west midlands would be the new M6 south link to the M54 in Shropshire. Will the Minister join me in continuing to petition the Treasury to ensure that funds are available for that within the next few years?

Robert Goodwill: My hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) has also raised that issue with me on a number of occasions, and I note the aspirations to upgrade that road to having motorway-type status, despite the fact that it does not have a hard shoulder in every location at the moment.

High-speed Rail (Kent)

Charlie Elphicke: What assessment he has made of the economic effect of high-speed rail services to Kent.

Stephen Hammond: The Department for Transport is currently undertaking an economic evaluation of High Speed 1, covering transport user benefits, wider economic impacts, regeneration, and Government shareholdings and assets. That evaluation is planned to be completed this summer.

Charlie Elphicke: I thank the Minister for that answer, and I welcome the announcement of the full extension of HS1 to Deal, Walmer and Martin Mill in my
	constituency, and the benefits that that will bring to the local economy. Will he give an idea of the similar benefits that might be provided by HS2?

Stephen Hammond: It is only fair for me to recognise the extraordinary efforts of my hon. Friend in ensuring that high-speed rail comes to Deal. I also recognise the extraordinary efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd), who is making the same case. HS2 will make an important contribution to securing prosperity across the country. It will generate jobs and rebalance the economy, and our estimates suggest that there will be more than £70 billion of benefits, including £53 billion of benefits to business.

Barry Sheerman: That’s £80 billion of wasted taxpayers’ money.

Regional Airports

Chris Ruane: What assessment he has made of the level of domestic and international connectivity provided by regional airports.

Robert Goodwill: The Government value the domestic and international connectivity that the UK’s regional airports provide. They make a vital contribution to the growth and recovery of regional and local economies, benefiting businesses and passengers alike.

Chris Ruane: The first hovercraft passenger service in the world was from Rhyl to Wirral more than 50 years ago, and currently three hovercraft companies want to restart that. One of them—Hoverlink—wants to establish a link to Liverpool airport from north Wales. Will the Minister meet a delegation of MPs involved in that, and Hoverlink, to establish what could be the first hovercraft link to an airport in the world?

Robert Goodwill: I was expecting to be asked about surface connectivity, but travelling on the surface of the water is a novel idea. That is an exciting idea, and I would be delighted to meet those involved, and possibly even take a ride on one of those vehicles.

Alan Haselhurst: In the light of the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s statement about the importance of a northern hub, should we pay more attention to that having a hub airport? Manchester has the possibility and potential increasingly to become a port of entry to this country, opening up the whole of the north of England and north Wales, as well as easing pressures on connectivity in the south-east.

Robert Goodwill: I am a great fan of Manchester airport, and many of my constituents on the east coast use it because it has such good connectivity by rail. I know that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is also keen to take pressure off other airports in the south of England, and Manchester airport and other regional airports have a great part to play in relieving pressure on the south-east. Indeed, with more point-to-point destinations being served, such as the one I saw at Newcastle recently, that is the way forward.

Chi Onwurah: I apologise, Mr Speaker, for missing my earlier slot, as it were.
	Newcastle airport grew its freight from £20 million in 2006 to £250 million last year, mainly on the back of the new Dubai route, but because it attracts more than 3 million passengers per year, it cannot have access to the regional connectivity fund, so what is the Minister doing to bring new routes to Newcastle and improve the economy?

Robert Goodwill: I was pleased that the Chancellor announced the regional connectivity fund. When I was at Newcastle airport in February, there was excitement about that. It is also looking to serve further routes. Although the limitation is for airports of fewer than 3 million passengers, there is a provision under exceptional circumstances to allow airports such as Newcastle with fewer than 5 million passengers to participate. We are having conversations with the European Commission to ensure that we can do something and that we do not breach any state aid rules.

David Nuttall: One way of encouraging airlines to establish new routes from regional airports is to allow them to operate free of air passenger duty for, say, the first two years. Will my hon. Friend discuss the possibility of introducing that measure with Treasury Ministers?

Robert Goodwill: I am sure Treasury questions will be along very soon, when my hon. Friend will have an opportunity to ask the Chancellor that very question.

Angus MacNeil: The regional airports of Munich and Barcelona have been named as two of the best airports in Europe and the world. Both have direct links to emerging economies throughout the world. The situation in Scotland is very different, with the UK Government imposing the demand-management, London-centred approach of having the highest air passenger duty in the world, which they have no intention to devolve. Could not Scotland do an awful lot better if it had the powers to help its airports to catch up with the likes of Barcelona and Munich?

Robert Goodwill: I suspect that this matter will be decided in September, but I am pleased that the Government have taken the opportunity of offering public service obligation flights to London. Dundee has put a deal together, and I hope other airports will come forward with good proposals to tap into that fund.

Mike Kane: Will the Minister join me in welcoming business leaders from across the globe to the aerotropolis conference in Manchester today—Cottonopolis itself? Does he agree that we must rebalance the economy in this country, and that to do so we must turn our focus away from Heathrow—the Transport Front-Bench team have a rabbit-in-the-glare obsession with Heathrow—and rebalance connectivity to our regional airports such as Manchester?

Robert Goodwill: I represent a constituency in the north of England and my constituents rely on regional airports. In fact, I would rather call them local international
	airports. Manchester is one of the premier local international airports and I very much enjoy using it. It has exciting plans for further development.

Gordon Marsden: Regional airports fear that the Government are not doing enough for connectivity, not least to London. Those concerns are reflected in the most recent Davies commission report. In his Budget, the Chancellor grandly announced more money for the regional air connectivity fund, but name-checked airports that are not currently eligible. The ones that definitely are eligible still have no guidance on how to apply. In addition, Ministers still have no green light from Europe to say that airports with 3 million to 5 million passengers, such as Newcastle, can apply. Only one airport—Dundee—is confirmed to get any money so far. How can we be sure that airports such as Newcastle, Leeds Bradford and Norwich, or anywhere else for that matter, will get more support from the Government by 2015?

Robert Goodwill: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government are very successful in negotiating in Europe when we need to get a deal. Having spent five years in the European Parliament, I know that we are always keen to engage and ensure that like-minded member states can come to an accommodation. We are optimistic that we can have a positive outcome with the European Commission. We will have further information for airports wishing to apply during the autumn when the details have been hammered out, so that we can comply with the state aid rules and ensure that the money goes to important regional airports such as Newcastle, which I know has aspirations to have flights to the United States.

Caledonian Sleeper Service

Tom Greatrex: When he last used the Caledonian sleeper service for travel in an official capacity.

Stephen Hammond: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has not yet used the service in an official capacity, but plans to do so shortly. My noble Friend the Minister of State, Baroness Kramer, used the Caledonian sleeper service on the evening of 31 October on a visit to Scotland. The Caledonian sleeper service is part of the ScotRail franchise, which is the responsibility of the Scottish Government.

Tom Greatrex: By my reckoning, there are at least four Members in their place this morning who are regular users of the sleeper service. When the Minister’s right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has the opportunity to use the sleeper service soon, he will, I am sure, discover that although it is not particularly high speed and he might not necessarily get that much sleep, it is a useful service. Given that the UK Government, along with the Scottish Government, are part-funding significant upgrade of the rolling stock, what is the Department doing to ensure that as much of the supply chain work for the upgrade goes to UK companies?

Stephen Hammond: As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the Scottish Government announced in May that the winning bid for the franchise will commence next year. We want to ensure a service that not only he, but all Members, can sleep on. The rolling stock competition
	will lead to an upgraded rolling stock. The competition will of course be open to British companies, which are currently very successful at winning contracts across the panoply of rolling stock contracts let by this Government.

Charles Kennedy: Mr Speaker, may I make it abundantly clear that those of us with a clear political conscience sleep very well indeed on the sleeper service?
	Will the Minister reflect on the fact that 15-plus years ago the then passenger franchise director was seeking to get rid of sleeper services, saying that they had no commercial future? In their wisdom, the Government—I support them on this one, for once—are providing match funding of £50 million at each end, with the Scottish Government, for a massive expansion to secure the future under Serco’s new 15-year franchise. This is a vote of confidence, the like of which has not happened in the lifetime of anyone in this Parliament. Will he welcome that fact and sleep well himself?

Stephen Hammond: I sleep well most nights, but nothing my right hon. Friend says ever fails to surprise me, either about his conscience or other matters. I am delighted to have his support on this matter. He is of course right: the sleeper service offers a unique, valued and high-profile service between Scotland and London. He is also right to say that the Government are committing to these services. The House will have noted the Prime Minister’s remarks in Cornwall last week on the Cornish sleeper service.

Tony Baldry: May I, on my birthday, reflect that the passage of time and progress are not always the same thing? Nothing will ever equal the excitement of a child at King’s Cross station taking the night sleeper steam train to Inverness and the highlands, and waking up at Aviemore to have kippers in the restaurant car. That is one of the many joys, like all-night sittings, that younger Members will never enjoy.

Mr Speaker: We are always pleased to be informed of the source of the right hon. Gentleman’s excitements, whether current or historic.

Stephen Hammond: May I wish my right hon. Friend—and my sister—a happy birthday?
	I think progress will be appreciated by all younger Members. The rolling stock will ensure that they get a good night’s sleep as they are whisked swiftly to Scotland to enjoy the many benefits of that country, which must of course stay in the Union with the rest of this country.

Rolling Stock (North of England)

Diana Johnson: What recent progress his Department has made on provision of rolling stock in the north of England.

Stephen Hammond: The Department for Transport reached agreement with Northern Rail in April 2014 to
	introduce four-coach electric trains that will begin operating in passenger service between Liverpool and Manchester from December 2014.
	TransPennine Express also received 10 new four-coach class 350 electric trains, which will now operate between Manchester and Scotland. Since May, TransPennine Express has used the displaced diesel trains to provide an additional service every hour across the Pennines and additional capacity across the network. In relation to the TransPennine Express diesel class 170 trains that Chiltern will lease from April 2015, the Department is continuing to explore options with industry partners and is in commercial negotiations. The Department will be outlining its proposed solution later in the year.

Diana Johnson: Perhaps the Minister missed the fact that I am a Hull MP, because he did not actually mention any of the services that go to Hull. Last week there was a lot of spin about HS3 for the north, which obviously will not happen until years after 2030, so let me press the Minister on the fact that we still do not have a resolution to the rolling stock being moved from TransPennine to Chiltern Railways. Again, is it not the case that, for the north, it is jam tomorrow, but today it continues to be jams for local people on the railways?

Stephen Hammond: The hon. Lady is wrong: the Department has identified a potential solution. We hope to be able to make a formal announcement later this summer. The decision to move the nine TransPennine Express class 170s was made by their owner. To address that, the Department is in commercial negotiations to develop a solution that is likely to see the introduction of more electric trains into the north, in addition to the 14 class 319s we have already announced, to release even more diesel units.

Martin Vickers: The improved rolling stock that was introduced by TransPennine for Cleethorpes to Manchester services a few years ago increased patronage considerably. Will the Minister give an assurance that when the new franchise documents—the invitation to tender—are published later this year, he will specify that the highest quality of rolling stock be maintained on services out of Cleethorpes and that it will be at least the quality of the 185 units in use at present?

Stephen Hammond: My hon. Friend is an absolute campaigner for his constituents, and he has spoken to me a number of times on this issue and on the consultation. I should say that the consultation is just that. We are viewing a number of proposals at the moment, including the remapping of certain services, but I am sure that he will wish to continue to make those points during the consultation period. When the consultation finishes, we will consider all the points made and look to specify the necessary rolling stock requirements in the invitation to tender to ensure that the best services are provided for people across the north.

Louise Ellman: When the Department agreed to move rolling stock from the north to Chiltern Railways, the Secretary of State said that he could not have “unreasonably” withheld his consent. As it is clear that no solution to the problem
	has yet been identified, under what circumstances would it have been reasonable for him to refuse to allow that move from north to south?

Stephen Hammond: It is not often that I would dare to correct the hon. Lady, who chairs the Select Committee on Transport, but she clearly was not listening to my two previous answers. A solution has been identified. We are in commercial discussions and we will be making a formal announcement this summer.

Philip Hollobone: Four trains an hour leave St Pancras destined for the north of England, with rolling stock through Kettering, but only one an hour stops at Kettering, so we have only an hourly service northbound, whereas we used to have a twice-hourly service northbound. Will the Minister speak with East Midlands Trains to give us our old service back?

Stephen Hammond: I thank my hon. Friend for his campaign on behalf of his constituents. Not only will I speak to East Midlands Trains about the issue, to ensure that his point is heard, but I am sure that he will want to catch me later to stress the point further.

Lilian Greenwood: The Government’s consultation on rail services in the north proposes a number of route level changes to TransPennine Express, but is silent on Ministers’ plans for Northern Rail, even though it is clear that wide-ranging changes are envisaged. Will the Minister come clean with passengers, rule out a backroom deal and let people know what is planned for their area?

Stephen Hammond: There is a live consultation on Northern and TransPennine at the moment, which invites views across the region on a number of proposals, including the remapping of some franchise services between the two franchises. It involves both Northern and TransPennine, and I should stress that it is a consultation, which does not finish until mid August. When it does so, we will consider all those responses. There is no question of any backroom deal.

Andrew Percy: Can the Minister assure us that in the consultation on the new rail franchises, he will take account of the strong campaign being run by the Scunthorpe Telegraph and the Grimsby Telegraph in respect of our desire and requirement to maintain our services through to Manchester? Can he assure us, too, that whatever changes come, we will not be condemned to the Pacer units that I have to use every week on the train back to Goole?

Stephen Hammond: Let me give my hon. Friend two pieces of good news. First, I know he will have read the consultation document from cover to cover, so he will have noted paragraph 7.7, which states that the
	“bidders will be required to include plans, either in their core proposition or as an option, which would enable the withdrawal of all Pacer units from Northern services.”
	I obviously recognise the campaign of the two newspapers he mentioned, and I am aware of the campaign he has rightly put forward on behalf of his constituents. I would say to my hon. Friend, as I have said to those
	newspapers, which faithfully reported my words, that this is a consultation and no decision has yet been made.

Mr Speaker: I call Jack Dromey. Not here.

High Speed 2 (Wigan)

David Mowat: What the estimated cost-benefit ratio is for the High Speed 2 Wigan spur.

Stephen Hammond: The Department has not estimated the case for the western leg of the Y-shaped route for High Speed 2 without the Wigan spur. However, preliminary analysis undertaken by HS2 Ltd suggested that this section of the line is likely to provide benefits in the order of £1.2 billion, revenue of about £600 million, and is likely to offer very high value for money.

David Mowat: I have been, and remain, a strong supporter of HS2 because I believe in the transformational benefits that will occur. However, none of these transformational benefits occurs because of the line north of Manchester—it is not in the published business or in the published economic case—and the cost of this line is the better part of £1 billion, including allocated contingencies. Will the Minister confirm that he will look hard at this issue during the current consultation?

Stephen Hammond: I welcome my hon. Friend’s support for High Speed 2, and I welcome the opportunity to lay on the line yet again that the mischievous remarks of the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman), suggesting a figure of £80 billion, are completely false. I will, of course, look through the consultation, but I am sure my hon. Friend will recognise that having the Wigan spur will ensure that we can deliver some of the benefits to the west coast main line, which is why the Government believe at this stage that it offers high value for money.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. I am sure that from her vantage point as the Member of Parliament for Chesham and Amersham, the right hon. Lady will nevertheless wish to reference the Wigan spur.

Cheryl Gillan: Thank you, Mr Speaker. This morning, I heard of the death of Mrs Shirley Judges, one of my firm campaigners against HS2—and she was probably against the HS2 Wigan spur. She had put up a robust defence of our local environment in the Chilterns and throughout the country. The cost-benefit analyses of this Government have always been questionable, but I would like the Ministers to look very seriously at the benefits for those people who are forced to move house because of HS2 or indeed those who may be forced to move house in future because of the Wigan spur. Would it be possible to give these people a stamp duty holiday on the sale of their properties because they are being so badly affected? Finally, let me say that without people such as
	Mrs Judges, we would not have the strong voices that will make this project either go away or become a better project in the future.

Stephen Hammond: I never cease to be supportive of my right hon. Friend’s support for her constituents, and on this occasion she has managed to alter this country’s geography so that the Wigan spur is somewhere close to Chesham. I am sorry to hear of her constituent’s death and our condolences go to her family. She will, of course, recognise that the Government are already paying the stamp duty on properties within the 60-metre boundary. If she writes to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, I am sure he will consider her proposition for a further extension as part of the consultation.

A417-A419 (Gloucestershire)

Laurence Robertson: What recent progress he has made on improving the A417-A419 at Nettleton Bottom and Crickley Hill in Gloucestershire; and if he will make a statement.

Robert Goodwill: The Highways Agency is preparing a route strategy for the midlands to Wales and Gloucester. It covers the section of the A417 that includes Nettleton Bottom and Crickley Hill, known as the “missing link”, which has been identified as a key issue on the route. The next stage will be to assess options, and to produce indicative business cases as a basis on which to prioritise investment from 2015 onwards.

Laurence Robertson: The Minister will be aware that the death toll on the road continues to rise, as do the delays experienced by travellers as a result of congestion. He will also be aware of how long my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) and I, in particular, have continued our campaign to secure improvements to the road. It would be good if he and/or the Secretary of State could visit us in the near future to observe the problems for themselves.

Robert Goodwill: This is a particularly challenging operation from both an environmental and an engineering perspective. The cost of the work has been estimated at about £255 million. It would include two junctions which would be grade separated, and the road is, of course, in an area of outstanding natural beauty. However, I have some good news for my hon. Friend: the Secretary of State plans to visit that part of the road next week.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: While we look forward eagerly to the Secretary of State’s visit, we look forward even more eagerly to what my hon. Friend the Minister can do to upgrade the priority of this particular scheme. This is one of the busiest arterial roads in the country: it links the M4 to the M5. Tragically, we have had five deaths since last November. This is a really important priority. What can my hon. Friend do to help?

Robert Goodwill: It was made clear to us when we met my hon. Friend and our hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) during the winter that dealing with the problem has been in the “too difficult
	to do” box for too long. The phrase “missing link” is a very good way of describing this piece of road, given the congestion that it causes and, of course, its accident record, which is not good at all.

Mark Harper: May I briefly convey the support of constituents on my side of the river for the campaign that has been run by my hon. Friend the Members for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson) and for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) over a long period? The improvement is important to us, so let me add our support for anything that the Minister can do to speed it up.

Robert Goodwill: I know that all Members in that part of the world understand the importance of the route, and also understand the need to carry out the work in an environmentally sympathetic way because the road is in an area of outstanding natural beauty.

Offshore Oil and Gas (Helicopter Safety)

Frank Doran: What recent assessment he has made of the safety of passengers in the offshore oil and gas helicopter transport system.

Stephen Hammond: The Civil Aviation Authority published its review of offshore helicopter safety on 20 February this year. The United Kingdom has a good helicopter safety record, and there is no evidence to suggest that travelling to oil and gas installations by helicopter is any less safe than travelling by any other helicopter operated in the UK. However—like the hon. Gentleman, I am sure—I am pleased that the CAA review has proposed a number of recommendations for further examination of the overall safety for passengers in the offshore oil and gas helicopter transport system. I note that the oil and gas industry has accepted the recommendations. It is working closely with the CAA to implement them and introduce safety improvement measures, and the Department is carefully monitoring the effectiveness of the CAA and the industry in doing so.

Frank Doran: I am sorry that the Minister did not mention the Transport Committee’s report on the serious problem of helicopter transport in the offshore industry, which was published on Tuesday this week. I hope that, when the Secretary of State sees the report, he will focus on the part that deals with the survivors of the last fatal crash in August last year, so that he can fully understand what the work force in the North sea have to put up with every day, and why those workers and their families support the demand for a full public inquiry into helicopter safety.

Stephen Hammond: We have obviously seen the Select Committee’s report, and, as the hon. Gentleman will know, we are considering our response carefully. We will respond by 28 August, and we will certainly read and respond to the section about the impact on the lives of the survivors. As for the question of a full public inquiry, the CAA has conducted a thorough review and has made important recommendations. We need to give
	the organisations involved time to implement those recommendations, and we are making sure that they address the concerns of the industry.

Topical Questions

Tom Greatrex: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Stephen Hammond: May I update the House on a few matters my Department has been involved in since the last Topical Questions? The announcement of the first £6 billion of growth deal projects on Monday included a raft of transport schemes across the country, with money being spent on schemes determined by local priorities to boost local economic growth. This landmark investment comes after our allocation in June of an extra £200 million to local authorities to fix potholes. Since the last Transport questions, the Department has also signed a contract with Virgin Trains for rail services on the west coast main line providing an extra 1,000 seats, and at the beginning of the week we announced £53 million to be spent on improving wi-fi access on trains, enabling passengers to receive seamless mobile broadband connections.

Tom Greatrex: I thank the Minister for that reply. I am sure he will be aware that it is very important, particularly cross-border, that we maximise the use of rail freight in this country, but I note that the east coast invitation to tender document states that
	“there is no requirement to protect capacity for freight”
	on what is a key section of that line. Will he confirm that that is the case and that, as part of this rushed privatisation of the east coast main line, he is making it much harder for freight to access this network?

Stephen Hammond: The hon. Gentleman has unfortunately failed to mention the upgrades on the other part of the freight line, which will ensure that all of those freight services still operate and there will be no diminution of service for freight operators north-south.

Mark Harper: I thank my hon. Friend for the significant investment benefiting both Lydney and Cinderford in my constituency that was announced at the beginning of this week as part of the growth deal. It is a part of our long-term economic plan, showing joined-up Government, which is welcomed by my constituents and will make a real difference to their everyday lives.

Stephen Hammond: I thank my hon. Friend for mentioning both those schemes. The Cinderford north quarter link road and the Lydney transport strategy will be of benefit to his constituents, and he has been a real campaigner for them. I am delighted he welcomes them, and I am sure he will have noticed the remarks of the chairman of the Gloucestershire First—now GFirst—local enterprise partnership, Dr Diane Savory, who said:
	“I’m absolutely thrilled that the Government has recognised the huge economic potential in Gloucestershire”.
	Indeed, we have.

Mary Creagh: The press announced last Wednesday that aviation security in the UK was being stepped up, yet it was Tuesday evening, a full six days later, before this Department issued a statement to MPs. There is confusion among passengers about what they can and cannot take through security, and different airlines appear to have different policies on the checks and on returning confiscated items to travellers. Nobody is arguing with the need to protect passengers, but can the Minister reassure the House that he and his Department will work with airlines to give passengers the clear information they need to prepare before they travel, ensure that airports have adequate charging points for electronic gadgets, and guarantee that Members of this House will be kept fully informed?

Robert Goodwill: The Secretary of State was on breakfast television today making it quite clear what the new rules will be, and making it clear that passengers travelling to and from the UK may be required to demonstrate at the departure gate that their electronic devices can be powered up. I know that airlines are taking steps to ensure that this can be addressed in a number of ways, for example people can be reunited with their devices or charging facilities could be made available, but it is important that we react to this new security threat in a way that continues to protect the travelling public.

Andrew Turner: Governments sometimes help with one Department but take away with another—on this occasion the non-ministerial Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. Will my hon. Friend make an assessment of the Isle of Wight’s connectivity and the impact on the Solent growth deal of HMRC removing the island’s ferry services from the tonnage tax regime? HMRC says it is not going to sea, which sounds a bit odd.

Stephen Hammond: My hon. Friend has lobbied me on a number of occasions about the issues of the island’s ferries. In this particular regard, qualification for the tonnage tax is a matter for HMRC. It is our understanding that since 1 July 2005 ferries have had to be operating at sea to qualify for tonnage tax. The cross-Solent ferries are regarded as operating within an estuary, as opposed to the sea, and therefore do not qualify, and therefore there is no impact on the Solent growth deal in respect of these services.

Nick Brown: What study has the Minister made of the potential for open access operators to reduce journey times between Newcastle and London on the east coast main line? What competition policy is he operating with regard to that matter?

Stephen Hammond: The right hon. Gentleman will know from the prospectus that we have welcomed the possibility of open access operators opening up new markets on the east coast main line. There is scope for that within the proposals, and we are looking at the bids very carefully. We recognise the benefits that open access has already brought for a number of people in a number of markets from the north of England, and I look forward to any other costed proposals.

Dominic Raab: Under the previous Government’s franchise, South West Trains passengers are the single biggest subsidisers of other train lines in Britain, yet their services were rated as third worst value for money in 2014, mainly because of overcrowding. Does the Minister recognise that my constituents using South West Trains deserve a fairer deal when Labour’s franchise is renegotiated in 2017?

Stephen Hammond: My hon. Friend has rightly consistently raised this matter on behalf of his constituents. He will recognise that the level of overall satisfaction with South West Trains in a recent survey was at about the sector average, but I recognise, as he does, that overcrowding on South West Trains in the peak hours is a well-known issue and it affects the perception of value for money. My Department is working closely with South West Trains to address that.

Mr Speaker: Roberta Blackman-Woods. Not here. I call Grahame M. Morris.

Grahame Morris: May I draw the Minister’s attention to the Airport Operators Association report “Airports in the community” which shows the excellent work that regional airports—also known as local international airports—are doing in the United Kingdom? Does he agree that the development of our regional airports is just as important as HS2 or HS3 in delivering economic growth, jobs and broader community benefits?

Robert Goodwill: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question, and I am pleased he was paying attention earlier on. It is vital that local international airports play their part, and I know that Newcastle airport is doing that. Of course, the Government are improving connectivity to Newcastle airport, with upgrades on the Metro, work taking place at Newcastle International station and, as he will know, the £61 million upgrade of the A1 western bypass between Coal House and the Metro Centre. That will address not only congestion, but the anxiety that many people feel as they are travelling to the airport worried that they may miss their flights.

Cheryl Gillan: Will my hon. Friend encourage HS2 Ltd officials to meet petitioners to resolve their issues in advance of Select Committee hearings? I, and many of my colleagues, have constituents such as Sally and Stuart Jackson and Gordon and Harriet Raitt in south Northamptonshire who are in desperate situations and want nothing more than to settle their petitions as soon as possible, without the need to appear before the Select Committee.

Robert Goodwill: We are absolutely determined that, where we can, we come to some accommodation with petitioners. Indeed, two weeks ago, I met the Country Land and Business Association and a number of its members who are affected to try to resolve some of the outstanding issues they had. It is important that we do whatever we can to resolve these matters ahead of what some may feel is the daunting prospect of appearing before the Committee.

Stephen Hepburn: With airports in the south, especially London’s, bursting to capacity and the north-east desperate for some form of economic stimulus, does the Minister not agree that it
	is about time the Government looked again at reducing air passenger duty or even scrapping it altogether for airports such as Newcastle’s?

Robert Goodwill: Once again, I am tempted to direct the hon. Gentleman to the Chancellor, but of course some simplification of APD was announced in the Budget, which makes it simpler for some long-haul flights. APD is never far from my thoughts when I meet people from airports up and down the country.

Duncan Hames: The consultation on the Great Western franchise, which has recently closed, covers a period that includes electrification and the first phase of the east-west rail project. What scope does the Minister see for introducing in the latter phase of that franchise additional services between Bristol and Oxford and beyond?

Stephen Hammond: My hon. Friend is right in what he says. He will have seen that consultation and the fact that we have invited initiatives from operators and franchise bidders in that regard. The possibility of extra services is being opened up by this Government’s commitment to electrification; by 2019 we will have put in place more than 870 miles of electrification whereas Labour managed less than 8 miles.

Jim Fitzpatrick: Will the Minister with responsibility for shipping support the Mission to Seafarers, the Apostleship of the Sea and Seafarers UK and the excellent work those important charities do? Will he look at what support the Department gives and whether it can be increased for those very important charities?

Stephen Hammond: The hon. Gentleman is right. I support those charities, and I am delighted to have attended a number of their events with him. I will look at that and see whether there is any more that the Department can do.

Philip Davies: Aldi is ready to go ahead with the development of a new supermarket in Bingley that commands great public support. To go ahead, the development needs a land transfer from the Highways Agency via Bradford metropolitan district council. Will the Minister ensure that the Highways Agency pulls its finger out as soon as possible to make that happen so that that essential regeneration can take place in Bingley?

Robert Goodwill: In my experience, the Highways Agency is very good at pulling its finger out when Ministers raise issues, so I will raise this issue with the Highways Agency myself.

LEADER OF THE HOUSE

The Leader of the House was asked—

Statements

Mary Glindon: What recent guidance he has given to his ministerial colleagues on making statements to the House before they are made to the media.

Andrew Lansley: The ministerial code is clear: when Parliament is in session, the most important announcements of
	Government policy should be made to Parliament in the first instance, and I regularly remind my colleagues of that.

Mary Glindon: Does the Leader of the House think that it is acceptable that the media are reporting that the Government have paused the proposed sale of the Land Registry when the Business Secretary has not yet made a statement to the House?

Andrew Lansley: I am not aware of the media reports to which the hon. Lady refers. I will, of course, look at them, but as far as I am concerned announcements are made to the House first. I cannot always preclude speculation in the press, which is sometimes well informed and sometimes very badly informed. I do not necessarily reach the same conclusion, but I will ensure that I let her know what the situation is.

Chris Bryant: That is all very well, but the Leader of the House has eight minutes and 14 seconds to tell the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister that they should not be making a speech to the media about their intention to legislate next week before a speech is made to this House.

Andrew Lansley: The hon. Gentleman will know, and the House will have seen, that the Home Secretary will be making a statement. Indeed, I will be making a business statement, too. Sometimes it is necessary for the public to be told at what is, effectively, broadly the same time as Parliament itself.

Written Questions

David Hanson: What recent guidance he has given to his ministerial colleagues about providing timely answers to written questions.

Tom Brake: Both I and the Leader of the House regularly remind ministerial colleagues of their obligation to give accurate, timely and truthful information to Parliament, as set out further in the ministerial code and included in the guidance issued by the Office of the Leader of the House of Commons.

David Hanson: Two weeks ago I raised with the Leader of the House a series of parliamentary questions on the important issue of passports to which I had not had answers. He helpfully wrote to the said Department, and I have had a nice letter back, but I have still not had answers to the parliamentary questions. The questions were tabled on 4 June, and they were on pertinent matters to do with passports. Can a timetable be set for when answers should be given to Members?

Tom Brake: I was aware that the right hon. Gentleman had raised those questions with my right hon. Friend, the Home Secretary. As I am sure the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) is aware, the Home Office, like other large Departments, receives a very large number of complex questions, and it takes time to produce a thorough response. Home Office Ministers take their responsibilities seriously, and indeed I had occasion yesterday to remind them of those responsibilities.

Written Questions

Tom Blenkinsop: What recent guidance he has given to his ministerial colleagues about providing substantive answers to written questions.

Tom Brake: The Office of the Leader of the House of Commons provides guidance to all Departments on the practice of answering parliamentary questions. The guidance advises Departments that Members should receive a substantive response to named day questions on the date specified and that Departments should endeavour to answer ordinary written questions within a working week of their being tabled.

Tom Blenkinsop: In a recent TheyWorkForYou survey, it was found that less than half of parliamentary questions receive a satisfactory response. Does the Deputy Leader of the House think that is acceptable?

Tom Brake: I am aware of that report. The only thing I will say is that people’s judgment of whether a response is satisfactory is down to them.

David Nuttall: What changes does the Deputy Leader of the House consider necessary to improve the quality of ministerial replies to written questions about the performance of agencies and non-departmental public bodies, because Ministers sometimes appear to be acting as no more than mailboxes?

Tom Brake: If there are individual cases that the hon. Gentleman would like to raise with me, I am happy to pursue them with the appropriate Departments and bodies. Of course, he has the opportunity to refer any concerns to the Procedure Committee.

Philip Davies: On 6 December 2010, the Home Secretary replied to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), stating:
	“We are also taking steps to ensure that the database will, for the first time, hold the profiles of all serving prisoners and all those previously convicted of serious crimes”—[Official Report, 6 December 2010; Vol. 520, c. 99W.]
	A few weeks ago I asked
	“how many DNA profiles of current prisoners have not been added to the DNA database”
	but was told:
	“The information requested is not held.”—[Official Report, 2 July 2014; Vol. 583, c. 645W.]
	How on earth can Ministers say that something will definitely happen and then, at a later date, say that they have no mechanism for judging whether or not it is taking place?

Tom Brake: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. Clearly it is a complex matter that he has serious concerns about. If he would like to write to me with the specifics, I am happy to follow it up with the Home Secretary.

Angela Eagle: The failure to implement universal credit and personal independence payments has left the Department for Work and Pensions in complete chaos, so is the Deputy Leader of the
	House surprised that two out of every three of its answers to written questions are judged by the public not to have answered the question? What does he intend to do to get DWP to improve that sorry state of affairs?

Tom Brake: I do not recognise what the hon. Lady says about universal credit, which I think will be a success. As I understand it, it is something that she and her party support. With regard to concerns about whether questions are accurate and satisfactory, I suspect that many of the respondents will have got a perfectly factual response, but perhaps not the one they wanted to hear.

Tessa Munt: In May I asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer a named day question about Treasury research on the number of jobs in the UK that are dependent on Europe. What I received back from one of the Ministers was complete waffle, and it was late. A couple of weeks ago the Chief Secretary to the Treasury was able to confirm that 3.3 million jobs in the UK are dependent on Europe. What can the Deputy Leader of the House do to correct that quality of answer?

Tom Brake: I thank my hon. Friend, who I think has corrected the quality of the answer by pointing out that 3.3 million jobs in the UK are dependent on our trade with Europe.

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, representing the House of Commons Commission, was asked—

Parliamentary ICT

Helen Goodman: What recent assessment he has made of the quality of service to hon. Members provided by Parliamentary ICT.

John Thurso: Parliamentary ICT services are scrutinised by the Administration Committee on a regular basis. The most recent report to the Committee was on 16 June and related to the migration of mailboxes to Microsoft 365 services. This summer, all parliamentary services were subject to a process of interviews with Members and their staff. A summary of the feedback has been published, and a summary of responses from PICT and House departments to the feedback will be considered by the Committee on 14 July.

Helen Goodman: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that answer. I will not detain the House with the six-month tale of trying to get my BlackBerry mended, because it would take too long, but I know that I and many other Members are having considerable difficulties with IT services in the House at the moment. For example, Microsoft 365 seems to require people to have 20:20 vision, and the average age of a Member of this House is 55. It is proving extremely difficult. What can he do to ensure that the service is centred more on Members’ needs and less on strategy?

Mr Speaker: I was going to suggest that the hon. Lady seek an Adjournment debate on the subject, until I realised that she has, in fact, just staged one.

John Thurso: I have great sympathy for the hon. Lady. The problems I have had with my Android would detain the House for just as long. First, very considerable benefits will accrue from the transfer. Secondly, and most importantly, we have a new structure for the management of IT coming in, following the recommendations of a strategic review of our online services by mySociety. That will result in different organisational and management structures. I believe that many of the problems to which she has alluded, which are shared by many Members, will get us to the place we all want to be more quickly and efficiently.

Robert Halfon: May I suggest to my hon. Friend that hon. Members consider using Google, which is completely free, and Google Docs for saving documents, and then we do not need to spend thousands of pounds on things such as Microsoft 365?

John Thurso: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for his suggestion. The particular difficulties of operating in many locations with different staff and different devices mean that the cloud gives us a significant opportunity to improve service. Incidentally, it also gives us the opportunity to save a considerable amount of money, which can be put into further improving the service—

Mr Speaker: I think—sorry, the hon. Gentleman had not quite finished his answer.

John Thurso: No, Mr Speaker, I think you were right.

Mr Speaker: I hope this is the start of a trend. Mr Barry Sheerman.

Barry Sheerman: I get quite a good service out of PICT. I had the fortunate experience of walking through PICT’s offices the other day. Why is it that so many men are employed in PICT? There are hardly any women at all. What is going on in recruitment here? Surely we believe that women can do this kind of task in a way that is equal to, if not better than, men.

John Thurso: I can only say to the hon. Gentleman that the House Service is committed to diversity in terms of gender and in many other ways. It is led by Mr Speaker and the management. As to PICT itself, I would have to look into the matter and write to him as I do not have the facts to hand.

LEADER OF THE HOUSE

The Leader of the House was asked—

House Business Committee

Philip Hollobone: For what reasons he has not brought forward proposals to implement the coalition agreement commitment to set up a House business committee.

Tom Brake: The reasons for not bringing forward proposals for a House business committee were set out in full last December when the Government responded to the relevant inquiry of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee.

Philip Hollobone: Allowing the House of Commons to timetable its own programme while allowing for sufficient time for the Government of the day to get their legislation through is a really good idea and was perhaps the best feature of the coalition agreement. Does my right hon. Friend share my disappointment that this key part of the coalition agreement has been dropped?

Tom Brake: I am sure that my hon. Friend will be as aware as I am that, in trying to identify a consensus around which the House could coalesce in relation to the House business committee and the need for it to be able to take into account the successful establishment of the Backbench Business Committee and what is happening in the House of Lords, it was in fact impossible to come forward with a proposal that would satisfy all Members.

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, representing the House of Commons Commission, was asked—

Clerk of the House and Chief Executive

Simon Burns: What assessment he has made of the procedures for the appointment of the next Clerk of the House and Chief Executive; and if he will make a statement.

John Thurso: The process for appointment of the next Clerk of the House and Chief Executive has included public advertisement and the use of an executive search agency to identify potential candidates, undertake initial interviews, review all applications and draw up a long list of suitable candidates. A short list for interview has been agreed by the selection panel. As the process is not yet concluded, I cannot yet provide the assessment that my right hon. Friend seeks.

Simon Burns: I accept that the role of the Clerk of the House is of vital importance to all hon. Members. Given that the world has been trawled for a potential successor, even, for some odd reason, as far as Australia,
	will my hon. Friend tell me whether the taxpayer will be paying the cost of travel to the UK for interview of any candidates from abroad, and what budget has been set aside to fulfil that?

John Thurso: With regard to the first part of the right hon. Gentleman’s question, I can of course confirm that we all recognise the supreme importance of the role of the Clerk and the Chief Executive in our affairs, and I am sure that the panel will be working very diligently—I am serving on that panel—to ensure that the person with the right qualifications is chosen for the job. With regard to the second point, I do not know what the expenses may be for candidates and therefore may I write to my right hon. Friend on that question?

LEADER OF THE HOUSE

The Leader of the House was asked—

Select Committee Reports

Paul Flynn: What recent guidance he has given to his ministerial colleagues about providing substantive responses to Select Committee reports.

Tom Brake: Written guidance produced by the Cabinet Office, commonly referred to as the Osmotherly rules, specifies that Departments should aim to provide the considered Government response to both Commons and Lords Select Committee reports within two months of their publication.

Paul Flynn: The “revolving door” is the pernicious system whereby senior Ministers, military people and civil servants can prostitute their insider knowledge for private gain in their retirement years. The system for controlling this, the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments, was criticised by a Select Committee and reforms were suggested. That did not have an answer in two months; it has not had an answer in 22 months.

Tom Brake: I am aware that the hon. Gentleman has an interest in the pre-appointment hearings issue, and I understand that the Minister for the Cabinet Office was questioned recently by the Public Administration Select Committee about the matter. I am pleased to report that the Cabinet Office has now submitted its response to the Committee.

Business of the House

Angela Eagle: Will the Leader of the House please give us the business for next week?

Andrew Lansley: The business for next week is as follows:
	Monday 14 July—Second Reading of the Childcare Payments Bill, followed by a motion to approve the first report from the Committee on Standards on respect policy.
	Tuesday 15 July—Proceedings on a Business of the House motion, followed by all stages of the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill.
	Wednesday 16 July—Motion on the retirement of the Clerk of the House, followed by Second Reading of the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill.
	Thursday 17 July—Statement on the publication of the second report from the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, “A New Magna Carta?”, followed by statement on the publication of the second report from the Education Committee, “Safe and Suitable: 16-plus Care Options”, followed by debate on a motion relating to the universal postal service obligation, followed by general debate on provision of education for children with autism, followed by general debate on the position of Hazaras in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The Select Committee statements and the subjects for debate were determined by the Backbench Business Committee, to be followed, if necessary, by consideration of Lords amendments.
	Friday 18 July—The House will not be sitting.
	The provisional business for the week commencing 21 July will include:
	Monday 21 July—Second Reading of the Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Bill.
	Tuesday 22 July—Matters to be raised before the forthcoming Adjournment, as selected by the Backbench Business Committee.
	I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 17 and 21 July will be:
	Thursday 17 July—Debate on the middle east and north Africa.
	Monday 21 July—Debate on an e-petition relating to making Eid and Diwali public holidays.
	Hon. Members will wish to know that Westminster Hall sittings will be temporarily relocated to Committee Room 10 for the two weeks of the September sitting. Repair and modernisation work will be undertaken to the lift that provides access to the Grand Committee Room and the Jubilee CPA and IPU Rooms. This work will not affect the Grand Committee Room itself, but will rule out disabled access, and the relocation to Committee Room 10 will therefore ensure that Members of Parliament, staff and members of the public who require lift access will still be able to attend sittings in Westminster Hall.

Angela Eagle: I thank the Leader of the House for announcing next week’s business, and for ensuring that access to our debates for those with disabilities remains possible, despite the works that inevitably have to go on during the recess.
	I realise that we will hear a statement shortly, but will the Leader of the House confirm the arrangements for next Tuesday’s sitting, and whether he will extend it to ensure that the House can properly scrutinise emergency legislation to restore the status quo prior to the European Court ruling on data protection?
	We now have the business until the summer recess. After six weeks of legislative lethargy, just like buses, all the Government’s Queen’s Speech legislation has come along at once, with 25% of it in just five days. On Monday we will debate the Childcare Payments Bill. Nursery costs have risen five times faster than wages since the election, but the Government have done nothing, and this Bill will not come into force until after the next election. Will the Leader of the House tell us why the Government will not support our plans to extend free child care from 15 hours to 25 hours? And will he tell us why with this Government it is always too little too late?
	On Wednesday, we will debate the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill, which bears an eerie resemblance to the Deregulation Bill as it features such a random assortment of issues that virtually any new clause the Government care to produce is within its scope. Will the Leader of the House now give me a cast-iron assurance that the Government have no intention of tabling 45 new clauses and leaving just 43 minutes to debate them, as they did during the passage of the Deregulation Bill in the Commons? Will he tell us why the Governments do not back our plans to provide certainty for people working regular hours on a zero-hours contract?
	A week on Monday, we will debate the Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Bill, which has a title that is longer than its contents. The Government really are living in a parallel universe. The Passport Office has tried to claim that everything is okay, but it is still struggling with a backlog of half a million applications. The Prime Minister tried to claim that the NHS is getting better when it is actually getting worse and then we had the spectacle of the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions being dragged to the House surreptitiously to confirm while appearing to deny that the business case for the implementation of universal credit is yet to be signed off by the Treasury. The Secretary of State denied on the Floor of the House yesterday that the Treasury had ever questioned the financial viability of the business case for his pet project, but on Monday the Cabinet Secretary, Sir Jeremy Heywood, said that the Treasury played a role
	“in bringing to the Secretary of State’s attention that the project was way off track.”
	That directly contradicts what the Secretary of State said yesterday and both cannot be true, so which is true?
	As the population ages, more people are in need of care, but this week figures show that the number of people receiving care has fallen by 5% in the past year alone. A report from the Public Accounts Committee warns today that despite the squeeze in adult social care, the Government do not appreciate the scale of the
	challenge. I was therefore surprised to read an e-mail from the Liberal Democrat Education Minister to party members that laments that
	“almost half of all carers are cutting back on essentials like food and heating.”
	He fails to mention that that is because his Government have cut £3.5 billion from care services. The Deputy Prime Minister told the Radio Times this week that it takes a “steely side” and thick skin to get on in politics, but he failed to admit that Liberal Democrats also need two faces. I understand that Liberal Democrat MPs have been sent to Bedfordshire for survival training. At least they are finally admitting that they are an endangered species teetering on the verge of extinction.
	This week, the Financial Times has revealed that the majority of candidates selected to replace retiring Tory MPs are white male Eurosceptics. In South Suffolk, the long list contained seven women but the shortlist was made up of three men. A former leader of the UK Independence party will contest South Thanet for the Tories. It has gone from the A-list to the Tea party. This week, the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman)—a Conservative Member—admitted that he keeps the Prime Minister off his leaflets, that no one wants to keep hearing about Europe and that it is so lonely being a northern Tory that their regional group could meet in a lift. Where does that leave the Liberal Democrats?

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House for her remarks. May I take this opportunity, Mr Speaker, to say how much I and other Members of the House enjoyed hearing the parliamentary choir singing with their colleagues from the Bundestag last night? I know that you, Mr Speaker, and Professor Dr Norbert Lammert, President of the Bundestag, had the opportunity to address a packed Westminster Hall. It was the most inspiring and entertaining concert.
	The shadow Leader of the House asked about the business for next Tuesday. She is quite right: as we will complete all stages of the Bill on Tuesday it is important that we have a full opportunity for debate, so, subject to discussion and a motion being put before the House, I hope that the debate will extend to 10 pm.
	The shadow Leader of the House seemed to castigate us for not having enough legislation, but in order to do so she ignored the fact that after the Queen’s Speech debate we entered into the consideration of a number of carry-over Bills and the Finance Bill, and we are now moving on to the Second Readings of the Bills that have been introduced in this Session. That is entirely normal. Strangely enough, she said that there is too little legislation and then complained that the small business Bill had too much in it and that we might introduce amendments to it. It is a wide-ranging Bill. Its character is different from that of the Deregulation Bill. That Bill is principally about removing regulations that cause a burden, but the small business Bill is about making the policy changes in legislation that are necessary to promote enterprise and reduce burdens. This is not just about reducing burdens but about promoting enterprise, and rightly so.
	Curiously, the hon. Lady said that the small business Bill was too long and then complained that the heroism Bill was too short. I quite like a short Bill, as it happens—I think that is rather a good thing. I look forward to the Second Reading debate on the Bill, which will introduce the important aspect of giving people in law, in civil
	cases, the opportunity to be sure that when they undertake something that is in the broad public interest or demonstrates heroism, they will not be penalised. I think that is very helpful.
	The hon. Lady seems to have taken to a habit of starting to re-run Opposition debates—in this instance, on universal credit. The House had an opportunity to debate universal credit on an Opposition motion, an opportunity to listen to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions answer the urgent question very thoroughly and successfully, and an opportunity, through the Liaison Committee, on estimates, to debate the implementation of universal credit. In every instance, my right hon. Friend and Ministers made it admirably clear how we are proceeding with a policy that, frankly, the Opposition supported. It is typical political opportunism to try to cavil as we implement this safely and securely, as distinct from their implementation of the tax credit system, which was, in truth, chaotic.
	The hon. Lady talked about the cost of living. Let me remind her of what this coalition is doing together to assist people with the inevitable difficulties of coping in the wake of the destruction of economic value by Labour, which took £3,000 per household out of the value of the economy. We are cutting tax for over 26 million people, taking 3 million people out of income tax altogether, freezing fuel duty for the rest of this Parliament, helping local authorities to freeze council tax, delivering an average £50 reduction in energy bills, cutting £50 from some of the highest water bills down in the south-west, capping rail fare increases, capping charges on pensions, stopping excessive charges when paying with credit and debit cards, and capping the cost of payday loans. On child care, which she mentioned, we are funding 15 hours a week of free child care for all three and four-year-olds and for disadvantaged two-year-olds. I look forward to the support that I hope the House will give to the Childcare Payments Bill, which introduces tax-free child care for working families. That is how we are helping working families in this coalition Government, and I look forward to the debates that push that agenda forward.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. As usual, a great many right hon. and hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye, but I remind the House that there are two statements to follow the business question and then a significantly subscribed debate, the contributors to which I am naturally keen to accommodate. Therefore, exceptionally, it may not be possible to accommodate everybody at this session today. To maximise my chances of doing so, I will require extreme brevity from Back Benchers and Front Benchers alike.

Stewart Jackson: May we have a debate on expeditious deportations? Last week, Lithuanian career criminal Mantas Pronckus appeared for the third time at Peterborough Crown court having been arrested, charged and sentenced twice before. He had apparently agreed, in an informal arrangement with the Home Office, to leave the UK permanently, but had clearly failed to do so. When are we going to upgrade arrangements at the borders to protect our constituents and permanently exclude the likes of unpleasant criminals such as Pronckus?

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising a case that I know is of concern to his constituents, and Members will have been interested in what he had to say. I will, if I may, speak to my colleagues at the Home Office, in order to establish what the position is.

Mr Speaker: Perhaps I can look to a distinguished former Cabinet Minister to offer us the tutorial in brevity. I call Mr John Denham.

John Denham: May we have a debate on compensation for faulty work carried out under the affordable warmth obligation? The Mark Group carried out work on the home of a constituent of mine, presenting itself as delivering a Government scheme, but now neither it nor the regulator or Ministers are willing to act to compensate my constituent.

Andrew Lansley: I was not familiar with the issue raised by the right hon. Gentleman, but I will, of course, raise it with my colleagues at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. He may, of course, wish to raise it himself at next Thursday’s questions.

Anne-Marie Morris: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the recent tragic case of three-year-old Sam Morrish in my constituency. Sam died of sepsis while under the care of the local NHS and it took more than two years for the ombudsman’s report to be delivered, causing a lot of grief to my constituent, which, frankly, is a disgrace. Will my right hon. Friend agree to a debate in this Chamber on the ineffective and unaccountable ombudsman process, which was established in 1967 and the guidelines for which are now long overdue for reform, particularly given that that was the conclusion reached by the Public Administration Committee in its April 2014 report?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend raises a tragic case and I share with the Prime Minister, with whom she has also raised it, the sense of deep regret and sorrow for the family of Sam Morrish. I have a number of things to say in response. First, the role of the ombudsman is to mitigate distress and to provide redress where appropriate. When that does not happen, the health ombudsman herself very much regrets it and she has expressed regret in this case. The Government are considering the Public Administration Committee reports on how complaints about public services are handled. The Cabinet Office is taking a wider look at the role and powers of the public sector ombudsman and we will respond to those reports in due course.

Gerald Kaufman: May I thank you, Mr Speaker, for receiving the Speaker of the Parliament of Pakistan with such courtesy? I saw him last night and he appreciated it very much.
	Has the right hon. Gentleman seen early-day motion 238, standing in my name and those of other Members, with regard to the persecution of a constituent of mine who is a member of staff of a branch of Asda in my constituency?
	[That this House condemns, in the strongest possible terms, the tyrannical employment practices of Asda, whose branch in Longsight, Manchester, has bullied and bludgeoned a staff member, a constituent of the right hon. Member 
	for Manchester, Gorton, for more than two years, placing his livelihood in jeopardy throughout this period, subjecting him to intolerable pressure and blatantly violating their own employment procedures; in particular condemns Allan Edwards, Asda Director of Public Affairs, who, in correspondence with the right hon. Member over a prolonged period, has procrastinated and dodged in order to fob off extremely justified concerns; and calls on the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills to investigate these immoral thugs, who clearly believe that they are immune from
	 decency because of the company’
	s huge 
	wealth
	.
	]
	My constituent came to see me last Friday evening in a state of enormous distress about the way in which this huge, powerful and wealthy organisation has deprived him of his employment and put him through procedures that were not necessary, while not abiding with its own internal procedures. This is intolerable in any circumstances. An organisation that advertises on television how marvellous it is ought to be dealt with. Will the right hon. Gentleman respond to me in his customary helpful fashion?

Andrew Lansley: I have read the early-day motion to which the right hon. Gentleman refers. It is expressed in strong terms, as, indeed, was his question just now. I will, as he asks in his early-day motion, ask my colleagues at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to respond to it and his question. There are civil procedures available under employment law for those who are the subject of any kind of discrimination or bullying, and it is those routes, rather than those of Government, that should primarily be used.

Mr Speaker: Everything the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) says is said in strong terms.

Therese Coffey: Many parents will not have been able to get their children to school today. May we have a debate on whether to make it a statutory duty of governing bodies that schools stay open?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend is right. This matter is a cause of considerable regret, an inconvenience to many parents and completely unnecessary. The National Union of Teachers, proceeding as it is on a mandate from a ballot way back in September 2012, is taking unjustified and intemperate action. I hope it will reconsider taking such action in future, but if it does not it will be important for Government to consider all the circumstances involved in such events and whether the law is right in this area.

Angus MacNeil: The regional air connectivity fund could be used to make airports in the north of Scotland, such as Stornoway, more central by investigating the possibility of links to the further north, namely the Faroe Islands—a similar group of islands to the Hebrides—or even as a stop on the route through to the Faroes or Iceland. Does the Leader of the House think that we could have a full debate on this matter? [Laughter.]

Andrew Lansley: That is an interesting new interpretation of brevity: just to have the same number of words, but expressed in a shorter period of time. I cannot promise a debate, but I will of course seek a response to the hon. Gentleman’s question.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: The Leader of the House will be fully aware that it is almost exactly six months since a sizeable part of the flooding started in Somerset. May we have time for a debate to discuss the lessons learned, the things we are doing and what that means across the UK so that the lessons we are learning now are not forgotten if we have the same problem next year?

Andrew Lansley: I will of course talk to my hon. Friends about that matter, and although time is very limited before the recess, I none the less hope that we can learn such lessons before the time of year when there is a further risk of flooding. More to the point, I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is very keen to come back to the House as soon as he can to update hon. Members.
	In relation to the previous question, there is a Westminster Hall debate on Tuesday on domestic and international connectivity provided by regional airports, which may be helpful to the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil).

Barry Gardiner: It is summer and people want to be out in the countryside, so may we have a debate on the delays to the coastal path and other obstacles to access?

Andrew Lansley: If I may say so, I think the hon. Gentleman’s objective is very laudable, and if time were available for such a debate, perhaps on the Adjournment, I am sure that many hon. Members from across the House would welcome it.

David Amess: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the dredging of the Thames estuary? Leigh-on-Sea fishermen are complaining about the loss of their catch. I recently waded into the Thames estuary—I cannot walk on water yet—and I saw Victorian cart tracks that have been exposed. Something is amiss with the Thames estuary.

Andrew Lansley: I am sorry that I was not present to see my hon. Friend’s Canute moment. Happily, I can tell him that the Marine Management Organisation is aware of the concerns raised by fishermen about commercial fish stocks in the Thames. In the next few weeks, the Marine Management Organisation, the Kent and Essex Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority and the Environment Agency will organise a joint agency workshop to bring together industry leaders and experts to review the current state of key commercial fish stocks in the Thames. They will consider environmental impacts, marine developments, climate issues, freshwater run-off and reduced salination. They are very happy to keep my hon. Friend informed about this matter.

Barry Sheerman: Does the Leader of the House agree that it is high time we had a debate on the absurdity of English and Welsh
	school holidays? The fact is that we still base holidays on getting in the harvest or on closing mills to look after children. It is a rotten system, which needs to be changed. People are exploited by premium prices during school holidays. Let us get school holidays right. Surely that is a good topic for a debate.

Andrew Lansley: The hon. Gentleman will recall that there was certainly considerable public interest about this subject on our e-petitions website. If I recall correctly, it gave rise to a debate provided through the Backbench Business Committee. He is absolutely right that it is important to have such a debate, because parents feel strongly on both sides of the issue—about ensuring that children are in school with access to education, rather than absented; and about giving parents some relief from the very high cost of holidays that have to be taken during school holidays.

Cheryl Gillan: As one of the trustees of the Parliament choir, I thank the Leader of the House for his kind remarks. I thank you, Mr Speaker, and the Speaker of the other place for facilitating the historic event last night with the Bundestag choir. Through you, I also thank all the staff who made the evening so wonderful by working so hard.
	May we have a debate on access for the elderly and the disabled to London Underground stations? Unlike the Speaker and the Leader of the House, who are replacing Westminster Hall with Committee Room 10 so that the disabled and elderly can have access to our deliberations, London Underground still refuses to provide step-free access at Amersham station.

Andrew Lansley: I am interested in what my right hon. Friend has to say. Of course, her constituency is outwith London. None the less, as I understand it, this matter is the responsibility of Transport for London. She might wish to seek a debate on the Adjournment. To be as helpful as possible, I will write to Transport for London and the Mayor of London to see how they respond to the point that she rightly makes.

Meg Hillier: On 13 May, the Deputy Prime Minister promised to write to me about it. Two weeks ago, the Prime Minister promised to raise it with the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. Is it not time that the Secretary of State came to the House to talk about broadband and the plans to improve infrastructure, because Members of all parties from up and down the country have concerns about it?

Andrew Lansley: The hon. Lady will recall that the Secretary of State and his Ministers talked about broadband in response to questions last week. I thought that they did so very persuasively. I will look back at the dates to which she refers and see whether there are specific issues on which I can encourage Ministers to respond to her further.

Tessa Munt: The 668 bus from Cheddar village connects to the main service to Bristol, where several of its residents work. The cuts that have been made by Somerset county council mean that the bus will end its journey in Shipham, leaving a 1.5 mile gap to Langford, which is across the county border. I have
	remonstrated with the council, but it does not see that saving £14,000 annually on a bus service means that the taxpayer will have to support people who have to give up their jobs, even though they are able to work. Is there anything that the Leader of the House can do to help?

Hon. Members: No!

Andrew Lansley: There is. I can encourage my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Department for Transport to respond to the point that my hon. Friend has made so persuasively on behalf of her constituents.

Gordon Marsden: Like many Members, I have had the melancholy experience of writing to officials at the Department for Work and Pensions, in this case about a personal independence payment centre in Blackpool, waiting two months for a reply and then finding that the answer has been outsourced to Atos. May we have a debate on the responsibility of Departments to ensure that when Members write to their officials, the answers are not outsourced to organisations that have been judged to be failing?

Andrew Lansley: If the hon. Gentleman is able to give me the details, I will look into the precise circumstances of his correspondence. My practice as a Member of Parliament, when I believe that there is a ministerial responsibility, is to write to Ministers about issues. I do not always get a reply, but I hope to get one. That tends to ensure that the responsibility for the reply is not diverted elsewhere.

Mark Pawsey: Rugby is well known as the birthplace of the game, but our offer to visitors also includes our festival of culture, which is on right now. Given the pressure on town centres across the country, may we have a debate on how such events can revitalise town centres and bring people into them?

Andrew Lansley: I am glad to have the chance to congratulate Rugby on its ambition and vision, which is displayed in its festival of culture. We welcome partnerships such as that between Rugby First and Rugby borough council, as well as the other sponsors and partners, which show what culture can do to promote town centres and instil pride in local communities across the country. We have the UK city of culture competition but, as my hon. Friend has demonstrated, many other towns and cities can show how culture can be an essential part of their further regeneration.

Chris Bryant: The Leader of the House has already announced the Third Reading of the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill, which we will consider on Tuesday, but we have not even had its First Reading yet. Will he ensure that he tables two motions on Monday: one to allow the tabling of amendments before Second Reading, which otherwise would not be allowed, and another to allow manuscript amendments to be taken on the Floor of the House on Tuesday?

Andrew Lansley: We are proceeding with legislation that is urgent. For that reason, some of the normal processes are being telescoped together. The short answer to the first request is yes, I will certainly ensure that it is
	possible for amendments to be tabled before Second Reading so that they may be considered in Committee and on Report. However, manuscript amendments are a matter for the Chair.

Tony Baldry: May we have a debate next week on the courtesies to be shown to Members of Parliament by the machinery of government to better enable us to do our jobs properly on behalf of our constituents? Is there any possible reason why the leader of the district council in my constituency, the chief executive and myself have been banned by Defence Ministers from meeting Neil Firth, who leads a defence and storage centre in Bicester? That is a significant local employer and there are a number of relevant and immediate local issues about job security and planning.

Andrew Lansley: May I take the opportunity to wish my right hon. Friend a happy birthday? I am sorry to report that due to an administrative error, he was sent an incomplete and inadequate response to his letter to the Minister responsible for defence equipment, support and technology, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr Dunne). That did not follow the proper process, and I assure my right hon. Friend that the Minister will write to him with a comprehensive response. The Minister has offered briefings to all interested Members on the competitive process, and indicated that he is willing to meet the delegation from Cherwell district council to hear its concerns.

Ian Paisley Jnr: On 17 July, the Hallett review into on-the-runs will be published, and I note that no space is available for a statement in the House. Will the Leader of the House make that space available and allow for a statement on that day?

Andrew Lansley: The only reason I did not refer to the statement next Thursday is because I announced it last week. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will make a statement next Thursday on the Hallett review.

Bob Blackman: The Prime Minister has visited India more than any other country, and the Chancellor and Foreign Secretary are both in India this week, building on our wonderful relationships with that country. May we have a statement or a debate on building relationships with India and the new Modi-led Government?

Andrew Lansley: It is welcome that the Foreign Secretary and Chancellor visited India this week and were able to meet Indian Prime Minister Modi, as well as the Finance and Foreign Ministers. That enabled us to engage with the new Indian Government, and allowed the Foreign Secretary to announce a quadrupling of funding for the Chevening scholarship scheme, as well as an expansion of our diplomatic network in India. The Chancellor announced significant inward investments and substantial UK export finance credit to support investment in Indian infrastructure projects. Not least, I am delighted that my right hon. Friends announced plans for a statue of Mahatma Gandhi—the inspiration for non-violent civil rights movements around the world—to be erected in Parliament square early next year.

Jonathan Ashworth: Many of my constituents have been in touch with me recently to express alarm at the escalating situation in Gaza, and that topic arouses great interest in many Members across the House who have sincerely held views. May we have a statement from the Foreign Secretary next week on the position of the UK Government?

Andrew Lansley: The hon. Gentleman and the House will know that the Foreign Secretary has been assiduous in keeping the House updated and making statements as and when appropriate. In particular, I draw the hon. Gentleman’s attention to the debate in Westminster Hall next Thursday—I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for selecting it—on the middle east and north Africa.

John Glen: Public Health England recently informed me that it intends to submit an outline business case to the Treasury on the future of the Porton Down facility in my constituency. Given the importance of that decision and the Government’s drive to increase transparency in decision making, will the Leader of the House make time for a statement from the Minister so that I can have access to the documents that underpin that decision by Government Ministers?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend will know that it is established practice that outline business case documents are not shared outside the Government in advance of decisions being made, to protect commercial confidentiality and the integrity of decision making. However, I completely recognise the importance of ensuring that Members are given as much information as possible, and I understand that Public Health England has been discussing, and will continue to discuss, the progress of that business case with my hon. Friend.

Valerie Vaz: May we have an urgent statement on patient budgets and the change of policy by NHS England? Without a statement to Parliament or an impact assessment, who is in charge of the NHS?

Andrew Lansley: I do not think it is a fundamental change in policy. When I was Health Secretary I was clear, for example, that for those with continuing health care needs, personal budgets would be established that embraced health needs and social care needs. As the Health and Social Care Act 2012 continues to make clear, the Secretary of State is responsible for the national health service and will—and does—report to the House whenever there are major changes in policy affecting the NHS as a whole.

Gavin Williamson: Residents in the villages of Henley, Shareshill and Featherstone are often blighted by industrial-scale car boot sales. May we have a debate in the House on the irresponsibility of the operators and the impact they are having on my constituents?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend makes a good case for an Adjournment debate in order to illustrate those issues more fully, but if I may be helpful in the meantime, I will talk to my hon. Friends at the Department for
	Communities and Local Government to establish what opportunities local authorities have to ensure that car boot sales function in a way that is fair to local people.

Diana Johnson: The report published by the Public Accounts Committee and today’s Daily Mail say that there are more than 300 complaints a day of abuse by carers of elders. May we have a debate on the Government’s policy on keeping our most vulnerable adults safe?

Andrew Lansley: The hon. Lady will recall that the coalition Government have responded to elder abuse on many occasions. In particular, through the establishment of more inspections and an unannounced inspection regime by the Care Quality Commission, we are trying to give greater reassurance and to take action when any evidence of abuse emerges. That is especially true of abuse in domiciliary care. The CQC is working to ensure that it can take appropriate steps, including inspections, in domiciliary care circumstances, which have hitherto effectively been without that kind of scrutiny.

Robert Halfon: Has my right hon. Friend seen my early-day motion 240 on Travellers?
	[That this House notes that over 100 travellers are currently parked illegally on three sites in Harlow; further notes that they are illegally moving between multiple sites in Harlow; is pleased that Essex Police are issuing the travellers on Third Avenue in Harlow with a Section 61 notice that will require the travellers to leave their current site; recognises the hard work of Harlow Council to resolve this issue; thanks Harlow residents for their ongoing patience on this matter; and therefore urges Essex Police to issue further Section 61 notices on the remaining illegal sites.]
	We have a crisis in Harlow to do with Travellers that is reaching breaking point. Essex police are reluctant to use section 61. When the Travellers are moved on, they go to another location nearby. Will my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House look at the law, and contact the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to see what he can do to help us in Harlow?

Andrew Lansley: I have great sympathy with my hon. Friend, who raises an issue of importance to his constituents. I understand that not least because, in my constituency, at Smithy Fen next to Cottenham, we had considerable problems over a number of years. The coalition Government have given additional powers. We made a number of those changes to try to ensure that we can stop abuse and that enforcement action can be taken. Local authorities and police have powers. My hon. Friend is right to raise the issue. I know he will be as assiduous as he is on so many other issues to ensure that the authorities take whatever action they can to protect his constituents.

Derek Twigg: Yesterday, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions denied to me and the House that any concerns had been raised by the Treasury on the financial viability of the business case for universal credit. That seems to be at odds with the comments made earlier in the week by the head of the home civil service. Will the Leader of the House arrange for a
	Treasury Minister to come to the House as soon as possible to clarify whether the Treasury has raised any financial concerns about the business case?

Andrew Lansley: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions made the position perfectly clear, but let me reiterate that the Treasury confirmed, on 7 July, that it has approved funding for the universal credit programme in 2013-14 and 2014-15, in line with what the Secretary of State said. The universal credit programme is on track to roll out safely and securely against the plan set out last year. The service is available in 24 jobcentres, and the Treasury is fully engaged in that roll-out.

Mark Pritchard: Within the next six months, the Ministry of Defence will announce the successful bidder for the future supply of defence logistics and repairs to Her Majesty’s armed forces. May we have a debate on why Shropshire and MOD Donnington’s professional and skilled work force should win that contract?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend will continue to lobby effectively on behalf of his constituents. In the same fashion as I described to my right hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry), the Minister will be happy to meet my hon. Friend to hear his case.

Richard Burden: Will the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State for Health to make a statement to the House before the summer recess on the impact he believes his changes to the education support grant will have from this September, bearing in mind the letter I wrote to the Prime Minister on 2 July about the SWEET project in my constituency, which provides vital social work education and training? The project is having its grant cut from £28 to £20, and it is not the only organisation in that situation.

Andrew Lansley: The hon. Gentleman will note that, if he is in his place on Tuesday when the Secretary of State for Health answers questions, he might, with his usual ingenuity, be able to ensure that he asks that question. He has effectively given notice of it.

David Nuttall: Will the Leader of the House indicate whether there will be an opportunity in addition to today’s debate to debate the Justice and Home Affairs opt-outs before the House has the opportunity to vote on the opt-ins?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend knows the debate on this matter will take place after statements. I am sure that during the course of the debate he will have the opportunity to hear more about the process leading to the question of Justice and Home Affairs opt-outs being concluded.

Paul Flynn: Sangin, Musa Qala, Now Zad and Kajaki, all defended and liberated through the sacrifice of the lives of hundreds of our British soldiers, are all now reported to be under the control of the Taliban. May we have a debate entitled, “Afghanistan: Mission Accomplished”?

Andrew Lansley: As the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, the whole House shares in the sense of loss of our service personnel in Afghanistan, but I think we can also take great pride in what they have achieved. Their achievements include establishing, through the Afghan national army, the ability to take and hold locations that were previously taken and held by the British Army. Actually, some of the places he refers to have been taken and held by the Afghan national army.

Philip Davies: May we have a debate on the success of the Tour de France in Yorkshire, which caused great excitement and showcased what a great county Yorkshire is? Such a debate would highlight the strength of feeling in Yorkshire that Gary Verity, who did so much to bring the Tour de France to Yorkshire, and for other things he has done, should be recognised in the next honours list, perhaps with a knighthood. If we cannot have a debate, I hope the Prime Minister, who has very kindly come in to listen to my question, will take that message ringing in his ears as he leaves the Chamber.

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend has made his point extremely well. The Prime Minister will have heard it and I know he will have shared, with literally millions of people, the pleasure of seeing the Tour de France in Yorkshire over the weekend. If I may say so, I took particular pleasure in seeing the Tour de France pass through my constituency on Monday. My hon. Friend makes an interesting and good point.

Tom Blenkinsop: South Tees clinical commissioning group refused a £2,700 individual funding request, relating to gynecomastia, for a very young, lean, fit, low body mass index teenager in my constituency. May we have a debate on how funding requests are considered? Funding was refused on the basis of emotional need, but his emotional needs and mental health were not assessed.

Andrew Lansley: To be as helpful as I can to the hon. Gentleman, if he provides me with further details I will ensure that, through my hon. Friends at the Department of Health, the CCG responds to his point.

Philip Hollobone: Should my right hon. Friend not be in his place next week because he has been promoted to bigger and better things, may I thank him for his inspired leadership of the House? Before he goes, will he arrange a full day’s debate, in Government time and led by the Prime Minister, on Britain’s long-term economic plan, so that Members from across the House can describe how their constituencies are benefiting from Britain’s strengthening economic recovery?

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s very kind words. A consistent theme of Business questions is that I would have wished for more time to celebrate the coalition’s Government achievements in pursuing our long-term economic plan: cutting the deficit, promoting growth, delivering welfare reform and capping welfare, controlling immigration, delivering on more skills, and, perhaps most of all, having the opportunity to debate the dramatic increase in employment that has had such a positive effect right across the country.

Mike Kane: After the astonishing success of the Tour de France, many in the cycling community believe that a world class female tour of Britain would dominate the world. Will he raise that idea with the Secretary of State who has responsibility for sport, and report back?

Andrew Lansley: I will of course raise it. I completely understand. In every possible field, we want to have non-discrimination in terms of access to sport and the kinds of competitive sports we see.

Communications Data and Interception

Theresa May: With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the use of communications data and interception; the difficulties faced by the police, law enforcement agencies, and the security and intelligence agencies in utilising those capabilities; and the steps the Government plan to take to address those difficulties.
	Before I do so, I would like to make something very clear. What I want to propose in my statement today is a narrow and limited response to a set of specific challenges we face. I am not proposing the introduction of the Communications Data Bill, which was considered in draft by a Joint Committee of both Houses last year. I believe that the measures contained in that Bill are necessary, and so does the Prime Minister, but there is no coalition consensus for those proposals and we will have to return to them at the general election.
	The House will know that communications data—the who, where, when and how of a communication, but not its content—and interception, which provides the legal power to acquire the content of a communication, are vital for combating crime and fighting terrorism. Without them, we would be unable to bring criminals and terrorists to justice and we would not be able to keep the public safe. For example, the majority of the Security Service’s top priority counter-terror investigations use interception capabilities in some form to identify, understand and disrupt the plots of terrorists. Communications data have played a significant role in every Security Service counter-terrorism operation over the last decade. They have been used as evidence in 95% of all serious organised crime cases handled by the Crown Prosecution Service and they have played a significant role in the investigation of many of the most serious crimes in recent times, including the Oxford and Rochdale child grooming cases, the murder of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman, and the murder of Rhys Jones. Communications data can prove or disprove alibis, identify associations between potential criminals and tie suspects and victims to a crime scene.
	I have talked before about the decline in our ability to obtain the communications data we need, which is caused by changes in the way people communicate and the technology behind those forms of communication. That is why I continue to support the measures in the draft Communications Data Bill. However, in addition to that decline, we now face two significant and urgent problems relating to both communications data and interception: first, the recent judgment by the European Court of Justice, which calls into question the legal basis upon which we require communication service providers in the UK to retain communications data; and secondly, the increasingly pressing need to put beyond doubt the application of our laws on interception, so that communication service providers have to comply with their legal obligations irrespective of where they are based. So I can tell the House that today the Government are announcing the introduction of fast-track legislation, through the data retention and investigatory powers Bill, to deal with those two problems.
	I want to deal with communications data first, because we must respond to the ruling by the European Court of Justice that the data retention directive is invalid. This directive was the legal basis upon which the Governments of EU member states were required to compel communication service providers to retain certain communications data where they do not otherwise require them for their own business purposes. Indeed, the ruling provides us with such a problem precisely because very strong data protection laws mean that, in the absence of a legal duty to retain specific data, companies must delete data that are not required beyond their strict business uses. That means that if we do not clarify the legal position, we risk losing access to all such communications data and, with it, the ability to protect the public and keep our country safe.
	The ECJ ruling said that the data retention directive does not contain the necessary safeguards in relation to access to the data, but it did not take into account the stringent controls and safeguards provided by domestic laws, in particular the UK’s communications data access regime, which is governed primarily by the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. RIPA was, and remains, designed to comply with the European convention on human rights. It ensures that access to communications data can take place only where it is necessary and proportionate for a specific investigation. It therefore provides many of the safeguards that the European Court of Justice said were missing from the data retention directive.
	The ECJ judgment clearly has implications not just for the United Kingdom, but for other EU member states, and we are in close contact with other European Governments. Other countries, such as Ireland and Denmark, implemented the data retention directive through primary legislation, which means they have retained a clear legal basis for their data retention policies, unless a separate, successful legal challenge to their legislation is made. The UK does not have that luxury, because here the data retention directive was implemented through secondary legislation. While we are confident that our regulations remain in force, the Government must act now to remove any doubt about their legal basis and give effect to the ECJ judgment. The legislation I am publishing today and the draft regulations that accompany it will not only do that; they will enhance the UK’s existing legal safeguards and, in so doing, address the criticisms of the European Court.
	The House will understand that I want to be clear, as I said earlier, that this legislation will merely maintain the status quo. It will not tackle the wider problem of declining communications data capability, to which we must return in the next Parliament, but it will ensure—for now, at least—that the police and other law enforcement agencies can investigate some of the criminality that is planned and takes place online. Without this legislation, we face the very prospect of losing access to this data overnight, with the consequence that police investigations would suddenly go dark and criminals would escape justice. We cannot allow that to happen.
	I want to turn now to interception, because there is growing uncertainty among communication service providers about our interception powers. With technology developing rapidly and with the way in which we
	communicate changing all the time, the communication service providers that serve the UK but are based overseas need legal clarity about what we can access.
	The House will understand that I cannot comment in detail on our operational capabilities when it comes to intercept, but I have briefed the Opposition on Privy Council terms and members of the Intelligence and Security Committee have heard first hand from the security and intelligence agencies, and it is clear that we have reached a dangerous tipping point. We need to make sure that major communication service providers co-operate with the UK’s security and intelligence and law enforcement agencies when they need access to suspects’ communications. Otherwise, we would immediately see a major loss of the powers and capabilities that are used every day to counter the threats we face from terrorists and organised criminals.
	The Bill I am publishing today will therefore put beyond doubt the fact that the existing legal framework, which requires companies to co-operate with UK law enforcement and intelligence agencies, also extends to companies that are based overseas, but provide services to people here in the UK. I will make copies of the draft Bill available in the Vote Office, and I will also make available the regulatory impact assessments and the draft regulations to be made under the Bill, in order to allow the opportunity for the House to scrutinise these proposals in full.
	The parliamentary timetable for this legislation is inevitably very tight. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has just provided details of the prospective timetable for the Bill’s consideration, but it is crucial that we have Royal Assent by the summer recess. The Government have therefore sought to keep this Bill as short as possible. It is also subject to a sunset clause, which means that the legislation will cease to have effect from the end of 2016. The Bill thus solves the immediate problems at hand and gives us enough time to review not just the full powers and capabilities we need, but the way in which those powers and capabilities are regulated, before Parliament can consider new, and more wide-ranging, legislation after the general election.
	It is right to balance the need to prevent criminal exploitation of communications networks with safeguards to protect ordinary citizens from intrusions upon their privacy. That is why, alongside the legislation I am publishing today, the Government will also introduce a package of measures to reassure the public that their rights to security and privacy are equally protected. We will reduce the number of public authorities able to access communications data. We will publish an annual transparency report, giving as much detail as possible—within obvious parameters—about the use of these sensitive powers. We will appoint a former senior diplomat—I am sorry, I mean a senior former diplomat; for the avoidance of doubt, I repeat, a senior former diplomat!—to lead discussions with other Governments to consider how we share data for law enforcement and intelligence purposes.
	We will establish a privacy and civil liberties board, based on the US model, which will build on the role of the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, and the board will consider the balance between security and privacy and liberty in the full context of the threat we face from terrorism.
	We will review the interception and communications data powers we need, as well as the way in which those powers and capabilities are regulated, in the full context of the threats we face. The Government are discussing with the usual channels the precise form this review might take, but I hope that an initial report will be published before the next election.
	I have said many times before that it is not possible to debate the correct balance between security and privacy—and, more specifically, the rights and wrongs of powers and capabilities such as access to communications data and interception—without understanding the threats that we face as a country. Those threats remain considerable. They include the threat from terrorism—from overseas and from here in the UK—but also the threat from industrial, military and state espionage practised by other states and foreign businesses; the threat from organised criminal gangs; and the threat from all sorts of criminals whose work is made easier by cyber-technology.
	In the face of such a diverse range of threats, the Government would be negligent if they did not make sure the people and the organisations that keep us safe—the police, other law enforcement agencies and the security and intelligence agencies—have the legal powers to utilise the capabilities they need. They are clear that we need to act immediately. If we do not, criminals and terrorists will go about their work unimpeded, and innocent lives will be lost. That is why I commend this statement, and this Bill, to the House.

Yvette Cooper: I thank the Home Secretary for her statement, and also for the detailed legal and security briefing with which her officials have provided me.
	We agree with the Home Secretary that a temporary and urgent solution is needed as a result of the European Court judgment in April, because otherwise the police and intelligence agencies will suddenly lose vital information and evidence this summer. It would be too damaging to the fight against serious and organised crime, to the work against online child abuse, and to counter-terror investigations to risk losing that capability over the next two months while Parliament is in recess, and that is why we need to act.
	However, as the Home Secretary will appreciate, there will be serious concern, in Parliament and throughout the country, about the lateness of this legislative proposal, and about the short time that we have in which to consider something so important. That lack of time for debate makes the safeguards that we have discussed particularly important, and I want to press the Home Secretary on some of them. It also makes it essential for the Government to engage in a wider, public debate about how we balance privacy and security in an internet age.
	The European Court judgment has clearly created an immediate problem for companies that hold billing and other communications data to which the police have access under warrant when they investigate crimes. Action needs to be taken in the short term simply to allow them to continue to do what they have been doing, in a way that complies with the European Court judgment. The communications data need to be properly used under safeguards, but they are also vital to serious criminal
	investigations and to protecting the public. The police use them to find out with whom a suspect or criminal may have been conspiring to commit serious crimes, or to radicalise a terror suspect. They are used in 95% of all cases of serious and organised crime that reach the prosecution stage. When children go missing, the police can contact their mobile phone companies and find out where they were last. That helped them to find out that Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman were close to Ian Huntley’s house when their phone was switched off, and it helped to convict him of their murder.
	The data also help the police to identify people who are sending online vile images of children who are being abused. An investigation by the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre resulted in the arrest of 200 suspects, and found 132 children who were at risk of abuse and needed to be safeguarded. However, it was able to reach those suspects and those children only because of communications data. The legislation is certainly needed, and the information is certainly needed. The legislation is a more restricted version of the existing data retention powers. It is because we recognise how crucial the evidence is that we believe that it would be too damaging to lose it over the summer.
	We also recognise that there is a problem for some companies that provide communications services here in Britain but whose headquarters are based abroad, and which have asked for clarification of the scope of the legislation, as a result, again, of recent court cases. Companies should not be left in limbo or put off from complying with warrants when national security is at stake, for example, simply because they are concerned about whether it is lawful to do so because of the location of their headquarters.
	We will scrutinise the detail of the legislation, and we will debate the safeguards that are necessary, but we agree that the legislation is needed now. However, I am concerned about its late arrival. The European Court judgment was in April, and the legislation has been published just seven days before the end of the parliamentary session. I hope that the Home Secretary will realise that it risks undermining confidence for issues as important as this to be left until the last minute and rushed through on an emergency basis rather than being given more time. We recognise the timetable of the European Court judgment and we recognise, too, the information she has provided to us in the Opposition over the last week about her proposals, but she will also recognise the importance of Select Committees being able to take evidence, and being able to consider these proposals, too.
	The short time for Parliament to consider this makes the safeguards we have argued for and agreed even more important, so the Home Secretary is right to make this temporary legislation. It means that Parliament will need to revisit this issue properly next year, with detailed evidence and the chance to secure a sustainable longer-term framework. She is also right to add further restrictions to the way in which the legislation will work, and I ask her for further clarification on this, because she will know we discussed, for example, narrowing the scope of some of the measures, as well as narrowing the number of organisations that will be able to access the data, and I would like to ask her for an update on those discussions, and whether she was able to produce that narrowing in practice.
	We look forward as well to working in Parliament to make the new privacy and civil liberties board work effectively, but one of the most important safeguards is the Government’s agreement to an independent expert review of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, something the Home Secretary will know I called for earlier this year. The legislation was drawn up in 2000. As a result of the communications data revolution, the law and our oversight framework are now out of date. New technology is blurring the distinction between communications and content and between domestic and international communications, and raising new questions about data storage. We need to reconsider, therefore, what safeguards are needed to make sure people’s privacy is protected in an internet age, and we need stronger oversight, too.
	Previously the Government have resisted this proposal for a RIPA review, and I am glad that they have now agreed. I have suggested the review should be done by the independent counter-terrorism reviewer, David Anderson. Will the Home Secretary tell me whether that will be possible and also ensure that he will have the resources and capabilities and expertise he needs to be able to produce a thorough report which can recommend the kinds of reforms that we need but that can also give confidence to the process?
	There are three other areas, which we have raised with the Home Secretary, and where it would be helpful to see whether we can go further: first, in asking the interception commissioner to provide reports every six months on the operation of this legislation while it is in force; secondly, in strengthening the Intelligence and Security Committee so that it has the same powers as Select Committees to call and compel witnesses and by having an Opposition Chair; thirdly, the longer-term reforms to overhaul the commissioners to provide stronger oversight. Again it would be helpful to have the Home Secretary’s response to those proposals.
	Most important, however, we need a wider, longer public debate on these issues, which so far the Government have refused. The majority of people in Britain rightly support the work of the intelligence agencies and the work the police need to do online to keep us safe, but there are growing concerns as a result of new technology and the Snowdon leaks about what safeguards are needed and whether the framework is still up to date. The fact that the Communications Data Bill was so widely drawn last year also raised anxiety and undermined trust in the Government’s approach.
	The Government must not ignore those concerns or they will grow and grow. It is vital to our democracy—both to protecting our national security and to protecting our basic freedoms—that there is widespread public consent to the balance the Government and the agencies need to strike. President Obama held such a debate last year. We have urged the Government to now lead such a debate. I hope that the agreement to the RIPA review will now allow that widespread cross-party approach to having that open debate about the safeguards for both privacy and our security that we need, because we cannot just keep on doing short-term sticking plaster legislation in a rush, without the proper consideration of the privacy and security balance modern Britain wants to see.
	We will scrutinise the detail of this Bill as it goes through Parliament next week and we will support it, because we know the police and intelligence agencies need this information to fight crime, protect children and counter terrorism, and I hope we can also agree to the wider national debate that we need about how we safeguard our security and our privacy in an internet age.

Theresa May: I thank the right hon. Lady for the support she has shown for the emergency legislation and I am grateful for the recognition across the House that we need to ensure that our security and intelligence agencies, and our police and law enforcement agencies, have available to them the powers they need to be able to do the job we all want them to do in terms of catching criminals, preventing terrorism and catching terrorists. There is also a recognition that, as we have said, and as the sunset clause shows, this is meeting a gap now; it is ensuring that those bodies have the capabilities they have until now been able to rely on and that those are able to continue in the face of the legal challenges that have arisen.
	The right hon. Lady made a number of points. First, on the timing, the European Court of Justice judgment did indeed come in April, and, obviously, we have been spending quite a time since then looking at what is the most appropriate way to respond to it. But to any Members of the House who think it would have been possible to put these changes into normal legislation—into another Bill that is going through the House or into a separate Bill that was not fast-tracked—I say that that timetable was not available to us; it was always going to be necessary for this to be fast-tracked legislation in order to ensure that those capabilities are retained.
	The right hon. Lady mentioned the issue of Select Committees wanting to be able to look at this measure. The Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and I briefed six Select Committee Chairmen yesterday, and today I am publishing a draft version of the Bill. The Bill will be formally introduced on Monday, but I thought it was appropriate to publish it in draft today, as that gives that little bit of extra time for people to be able to look at it. As I have said, I am aiming to make the maximum amount of background supporting information—the regulatory impact assessments and so forth—available to Members of the House, so that people have as much opportunity as possible within the short timetable to be able to look at the various issues.
	The right hon. Lady asked whether there was any narrowing in the scope of the powers. The Bill makes something absolutely clear in relation to the issues of intercept. There have always been three areas of scope—national security, serious crime and economic well-being—and the Bill clarifies that economic well-being is there in the context of national security. Just for the avoidance of doubt, the Bill makes it clear that that is the context in which that has been used; it is related back to national security.
	The right hon. Lady raised a point about the ISC and its chairmanship. Of course, the House has relatively recently debated the ISC’s structure and its relationship with Parliament. She has raised a specific point about the chairmanship and where that person should be drawn from, and I recognise the strength of view that
	she and the Opposition have on the matter. Hers is not a policy that we have, but it is open to the House to debate these matters should Members wish to do so.
	Finally, let me deal with the review that is to take place. The right hon. Lady made a number of points about that, referring to it as a RIPA review. I should be absolutely clear with the House that it is not just a review that will look at RIPA and ask whether we need to tweak that; as I said, the review will look at the interception and communications data powers we need, as well as the way in which those powers and capabilities are regulated in the context of the threats that we face. That is important because we know that there are new challenges, through new technology, to our capabilities, and the threat context that we face is developing. RIPA came through in 2000 and we would want any legislative changes that the Government make after the next election to stand the test of a reasonable amount of time; we would not want to have to keep coming back to them. That is why this review has to be that wider review about the powers we need against the threat context we have and about the legislative and regulatory framework in which those powers and capabilities are regulated.
	The right hon. Lady mentioned the proposal that David Anderson should undertake this review, and I am pleased to say to the House that I have been able to speak to him this morning and that he is willing to undertake it. I think that is very good, given his expertise and his knowledge and understanding of these issues. He and I have been very clear in our conversation. We have not yet been in a position to sit down and discuss terms of reference and the resources he would need, but I am absolutely clear, given the nature of the review that I have just set out, that we need to make sure we get the terms of reference right and that he has the resources and support necessary to be able to do the job that I think everybody across this House wants him to do.

Malcolm Rifkind: Is it not important for the House to take into account that the European Court made it clear that it recognises that there may indeed be a need for such a European directive but that it is concerned that the current directive is not consistent with Human Rights Act requirements and so forth? In so far as the Government have given a clear pledge that the Bill will be drafted to meet those concerns about safeguards and human rights considerations, the Intelligence and Security Committee warmly welcomes the proposal. So far as the other measures in the Bill are concerned, the Committee will be taking evidence from the intelligence agencies on the interception warrant issues and related matters, and we hope to be in a position to advise the House when it considers the Bill on Second Reading next week.

Theresa May: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for his comments. He is absolutely right that the Court made it clear in its judgment that retaining those data could be necessary. The question was about the regulatory framework in which the data are retained and whether the methods and various aspects of access to the data were proportionate. I am grateful to him and to all members of the ISC for the work they continue to do on these issues. It is worth noting that the work of the ISC is important for the House and for the wider
	public, albeit that much of that work, by definition, is never seen or heard because of the matters that it addresses. The Committee plays an important role.
	My right hon. and learned Friend mentioned the criticisms raised in the ECJ judgment, and there were four key areas of criticism, on scope, duration, access and storage. We are addressing all those criticisms, in so far as it is necessary to do so over and above the regulations that we have in place. As I indicated in my statement, our current framework already addresses some of the issues that the ECJ raised.

Alan Johnson: I support the Home Secretary’s statement and the legislation. Does she agree that restoring the status quo is necessary but not sufficient? She has told us that this information has been vital to uncovering every single terrorist plot against this country over the past 14 years, and she has told us that there are gaps in that information. Is it not a paradox that we are rushing through legislation in seven days to restore the status quo when we have wasted five years in which we could have addressed the gaps, thus leaving the security services less able to protect the citizens of this country?

Theresa May: The right hon. Gentleman will have heard me indicate in my statement that legislation of the type proposed by the Government is necessary. Indeed, when he was in government prior to the 2010 election, the previous Government considered the future capabilities that were necessary. That issue needs to be addressed, and I stand by the draft Communications Data Bill that I published and that was considered by a Joint Committee. Future capabilities will be for the House and the Government to discuss after the election. Today, we are faced with the very real necessity to act now in order to maintain our capabilities; future capabilities will be part of the review and subsequent action.

Richard Ottaway: In my judgment, this legislation is essential if we are to protect our citizens from criminals and terrorists. The annulled directive required the retention of traffic and location data but not the content of the communications, and it was therefore different from lawful interception, which requires a warrant. Will the Home Secretary confirm that that principle remains unaltered?

Theresa May: I absolutely can. In the Bill we are addressing the two issues of communications data and lawful intercept, and I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for recognising and drawing a distinction between them. It is important that people understand that distinction. Access to lawful intercept will continue in the way that it always has—under warrant. One of the roles of the Home Secretary and, in some areas, the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, is to sign warrants and to consider their necessity and proportionality. A great strength of our system is that those ultimate decisions are made by people who are democratically accountable.

Hazel Blears: I welcome the Home Secretary’s proposals on data retention, which are absolutely essential to enable our security agencies to carry out their duty to protect our citizens, but I am concerned about the proposals to assert the extraterritoriality of our intercept powers, which, as
	she will know, is a matter of contention for some communications service providers. If some of them choose not to comply, what actions can she take to ensure uniformity of compliance with the legislation? That is a real challenge for her. I am also concerned about the mutual legal assistance treaty. It can provide a framework to enable us to get data from other jurisdictions, but it is so slow and cumbersome that it can take months. When we are in a fast-moving terrorist situation, we need to be able to get those data quickly. I think that reform of that treaty is a high priority.

Theresa May: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady. She raises two issues. First, she is absolutely right that there have been questions about the extraterritoriality of the current provisions in RIPA. We have asserted, as I believe the previous Government did, that the extraterritorial jurisdiction was there, but we have chosen to make it absolutely clear in the Bill that it is possible to exercise a warrant extraterritorially. That is part of the purpose of that part of the legislation. Secondly, we have already had discussions with the United States on the mutual legal assistance arrangements, and it is precisely that sort of issue that I think the senior former diplomat will be able to address in discussions with other Governments, particularly the American Government, because the right hon. Lady is absolutely right that currently the processes are very slow and do not address the issue as we need them to.

Alan Beith: Since it is not surprising that this is a difficult issue on which to achieve coalition consensus, I welcome the fact that the Home Secretary has agreed with my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister on a whole series of safeguards that are absent from previous legislation. I suggest that as part of the fundamental review that now needs to take place of this essential but temporary legislation we should consider whether some authority beyond that of Ministers, perhaps of a judicial kind, might be needed, certainly for the highest level of intrusion into privacy.

Theresa May: I note my right hon. Friend’s point. Of course, the question of whether some form of legal or judicial authority—a magistrates court, perhaps—should look at access to communications data was considered by the Joint Scrutiny Committee. It looked at the processes that are in place today and accepted that they were absolutely appropriate and suited the requirements.

Keith Vaz: I apologise to the Home Secretary for missing the start of her statement. I welcome the briefing that she and the Prime Minister gave to me and other Select Committee Chairs yesterday. I support these proposals. Keith Bristow has said that it is vital that we retain this information in order to protect the public. On scrutiny, she is due to appear before the Home Affairs Committee next week. I hope that that will be part of the scrutiny process for the Bill. Will she reassure the House that David Anderson will be given the resources he needs, because at the moment he is doing a very important job, but he needs the resources to do it even more effectively?

Theresa May: I look forward to my appearance before the Home Affairs Committee, as I always do. I can give the right hon. Gentleman an absolute assurance on that. As I indicated earlier, this review will set the scene for legislation that will operate for some years to come, so it is essential that we get it right. We must see it in the context of the threats we face, look at the powers we need and then consider the right regulatory framework for those powers. I am clear that David Anderson will be given the resources he needs.

David Davis: The Home Secretary has justified rushing this Bill through the House on the basis of an emergency. However, the case was put to the ECJ some time ago, and it took some time to reach its conclusion on 8 April, so if there is an emergency, it was a predicable one on 8 April. There has since been plenty of time to look at the 12 clauses that relate to data retention, so why is there an emergency now and not then?

Theresa May: As I said in an earlier response, there was always going to be a need for fast-track legislation. There was never going to be any possibility of taking the Bill through the House in the normal time scale, because of the potential timetable within which we would be losing access to this data. I also say to my right hon. Friend that of course the case was going through the European Court of Justice, but until it had given its determination, no one was absolutely certain what the result would be and what aspects it would raise. There was always the possibility that even if it did decide to strike down the data retention directive it would stay that decision for a period of time to give an opportunity for other legislative frameworks to be put in place by member states. In the event, it chose not to do that. It chose to strike down the directive immediately. As I said, we are clear that our data retention regulations stand, but we need to put it absolutely beyond doubt and ensure that we do not lose these important capabilities.

Ian Paisley Jnr: The Home Secretary will know that she has the full support of all law-abiding citizens in Northern Ireland for legislation that defends the realm and ensures that terrorists are dealt with appropriately. Indeed, legislation such as this has been used to jail some 300 people for serious terrorist offences, and to protect our citizens. With that in mind, the Secretary of State mentioned the sunset clause. Come 2016, I am sure that this legislation will still be required. Will she assure us that by then we will have something more permanent in place, or have a proper debate about what should be in place to ensure that legislation such as this is operational?

Theresa May: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support of this emergency legislation. He recognises only too well the importance of ensuring that we have the capabilities that we need to deal with both terrorists and serious criminals. On the timetable, the intention is that the review will report before the general election, so that after the election it will be possible for the Government to take it forward and to look at the legislation that is required in sufficient time to get it on the statute book before the sunset clause kicks in at the end of 2016.

Nick Herbert: I welcome these proposals. Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of her predecessors as Home Secretary, Sir Robert Peel, faced strong opposition in this House to the creation of a modern police force on civil liberties grounds? Peel replied that liberty does not consist in having our home raided by an organised gang of thieves. Does not any responsible Government now have to recognise that technology, while enabling the fight against crime, has also presented serious criminals and terrorists with new opportunities to commit crime and we must respond to that?

Theresa May: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. We need to be able to respond to that challenge if we are to continue to fulfil one of the absolutely fundamental roles of Government, which is keeping the public safe and secure. Sometimes people describe the debate between liberty and security as a sort of binary process; we can have only one or the other. I do not see it as that. We can only enjoy our liberty if we have our security.

Eleanor Laing: Although I appreciate that this is a very difficult subject, I remind the House that short questions and answers will mean that everyone has a chance to contribute to this statement.

Chris Bryant: I sympathise with the Home Secretary’s quandary, but I rather sympathise, too, with the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), because the only reason that this is an emergency that has to be dealt with in a single day in the House of Commons is that the Government have spent three months making up their mind, and they have decided that we are going on holiday in 10 days’ time. Does it not make far more sense to enable proper consideration so that we do not have unintended consequences from this legislation? If the legislation was considered in this House on two separate days, we could table amendments after Second Reading.

Theresa May: I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point. To ensure that we get this legislation through in the necessary time and that we have a space of time—I recognise that it is a short space of time—I am publishing the draft Bill today. I am not waiting until Monday to publish the formal introduction of the Bill, because I want Members to have some extra time to look at it. It is important for this House to proceed through this matter in a timely way such that we can ensure that we do not lose the capabilities, and that we get the legislation on the statute book before the recess.

Mark Field: Like many Members, I am instinctively uncomfortable about rushed emergency legislation, and also a little uncomfortable if there is too much consensus among those on all the Front Benches on any piece of legislation. However, I welcome what the Home Secretary has said today. She is right—it is a narrow and limited Bill which is only a precursor to other legislation. In my role as a junior member of the Intelligence and Security Committee, may I take this opportunity to assure all Members of the House that we take incredibly seriously our responsibilities to make sure that our security services act only in a legal and a necessary and proportionate manner?

Theresa May: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. I sometimes think that on some issues we cannot win in terms of the length of time available. The important point is that the Bill is not about extending powers or about new powers; it is confirmation of existing powers and of a legislative framework around them. The debate about extension of powers or any change of powers will come after the review and after the election.

Pete Wishart: Given the real intention and agenda, is this not just the snoopers’ charter—the prequel? Although there have been all sorts of arrangements and discussions among those on all the Front Benches and even with Select Committee Chairs, there has been none with the Scottish Government, even though we are responsible for policing arrangements and for justice? I asked the Scottish Government this morning what detailed discussions the Home Secretary has had with them. There were none. Does she think that is good enough?

Theresa May: I am very sorry about the tone that the hon. Gentleman has taken. We are, of course, making the Scottish Government aware of this, and discussions will take place with the Scottish Government. We are facing a situation where, potentially, we could see the loss of capabilities that lead to dangerous criminals, paedophiles and terrorists being apprehended and brought to justice. I should have thought that every Member of the House, in all parts of the House, would want to ensure that we maintained those capabilities, and I am very sorry if the hon. Gentleman takes a different view.

Michael Ellis: As a member of the Joint Scrutiny Committee that for six months considered similar matters, and as a member of the Home Affairs Committee, may I commend the Home Secretary for her statement? Will she confirm that the Bill maintains modern policing effectively to deal with modern criminality? It represents the status quo and it does not focus just on anti-terrorism. It would focus also on child protection and serious criminality of all types, and it is crucial that it is maintained.

Theresa May: My hon. Friend is right and, as he says, he has the experience of membership of the Home Affairs Committee and of sitting on the Joint Scrutiny Committee on the Draft Communications Data Bill. We are maintaining a capability, and as I indicated in reference to cases in my statement, and as the shadow Home Secretary indicated in reference to cases in her response, we have seen murders and serious crimes where the access to communications data has been vital in order to solve those and bring the perpetrators to justice.

David Winnick: Is the Home Secretary aware that, despite what she has said, there are great misgivings, which I share, about the legislation being rushed through next week? I will not support it, and I think it is quite wrong that such important legislation affecting criminality, terrorism and civil liberties should be rushed through in a single day. Those on the Front Benches agree, but that does not mean that all of us have to agree as well. Does she accept—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I must move on. We have to get everybody in. I think the Home Secretary has enough to go on.

Theresa May: In the interests of brevity, let me say that I disagree with the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick).

Edward Leigh: Surely most members of the public would congratulate the Government and the former Labour Government for being so robust on these matters. In the context of the wider debate, will the Home Secretary resist the advice given to her by the Liberal party that we should have further legal impediments? For the public, if there is a choice between their children being blown up on the tube or those people’s conversations being listened to, it is a no-brainer.

Theresa May: Yes, I believe the public do want to see our police, our law enforcement agencies and our security and intelligence agencies have access to the capabilities they need to keep people safe. The legislation is about ensuring that we maintain those capabilities.

Tom Watson: I have no doubt that the Home Secretary will get her Bill through next week, but the price will be a perception that it is the result of a last-minute deal between elites with little scrutiny by Parliament or civic society and that the rushed legislation might unravel. We have an honourable tradition in this country of policing by consent in which I know the Home Secretary also believes passionately. Does she agree that we should seek the same standards from our intelligence services? British people are not stupid and they are not ideological when it comes to this kind of thing. Why can they not have time to discuss it with their elected representatives?

Theresa May: As I have made clear, we are ensuring that we confirm and maintain capabilities that have already been put in place—capabilities that were put in place in legislation passed by the previous Labour Government. I recognise that the hon. Gentleman and a number of other hon. Members, including one of my right hon. Friends, have suggested that when those on the Front Benches agree on something that is somehow a conspiracy that needs to be resisted at all costs. The fact that all parties in this House, the coalition Government and Her Majesty’s Opposition are supporting the measure shows the serious nature of the issues we face and the importance of dealing with them.

Menzies Campbell: I, too, was late into the Chamber, which is why I have waited until now to seek to intervene. I apologise to my right hon. Friend for that. I commend her for her ability to strike a proper balance on incredibly sensitive issues, but may I remind her that there is a precedent established by her distinguished predecessor, Roy Jenkins, who at the height of the troubles in Northern Ireland put significant and important anti-terrorist legislation through the House according to almost the same kind of timetable?

Theresa May: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for his remarks of support for this legislation and for the useful historical precedent that he has brought to my attention, which I might quote in future.

Nia Griffith: The Home Secretary has quite rightly mentioned close co-operation with Europe and has mentioned countries such as Denmark and Ireland where no action is needed. Will she elaborate on what action she will be taking to ensure that when action is needed by countries, it is taken so that no EU state is left as a safe haven for communications by criminals, which, in this day and age, could easily be used by anyone?

Theresa May: I do, of course, talk about these issues with my opposite numbers in the EU member states. I have been talking with them about how they will address the issue, and I will continue to do so. We want to ensure that we have the maximum ability to deal with terrorists and criminals and that we do not leave any safe haven available for them.

Therese Coffey: Will my right hon. Friend spell out the implications for the safety of people in this country if we do not proceed with the legislation as she proposes, with the commendable support of the Opposition?

Theresa May: The risk is very clear. The risk is that we will lose access to communications data and to our ability to access intercept material. As I have said, those capabilities have been used in every major terrorist investigation by the Security Service. In 95% of the serious criminal cases dealt with by the Crown Prosecution Service, communications data were used and were necessary. In many of those cases, such data were an important and vital part of getting a prosecution—not just in investigating but in prosecuting criminals. Failure to have access to that data will mean the criminals will go unimpeded and will not be brought to justice. I think that sadly, as a result of that, innocent lives will be lost.

Stephen Pound: I am not entirely sure that the passage of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1974 provides an example of best practice. May I ask the Home Secretary whether she believes that any aspect of this proposed legislation should have a specific individual significance for Northern Ireland and if so will a separate statement be made?

Theresa May: Our proposals have broad application and there will be no separate statement in relation to Northern Ireland. I think that the statement I have made today stands.

Robert Buckland: Will my right hon. Friend reassure the House that the principles of proportionality set out in the ECJ judgment will be adhered to in the draft legislation and will the new privacy and civil liberties board be able, amongst other things, to consider the need for a properly codified law of privacy and data protection in this country?

Theresa May: On the second point, we are still looking at the exact form that that board will take and its terms of reference. It would be premature for me to suggest that it went down a particular route on an issue that it was looking at.
	On the question of proportionality raised in the ECJ judgment, we have addressed that in two regards. One of its arguments was that the scope of the data retention
	directive was too broad, so we are explicitly limiting data retention to a strict list of data types—those that were specified in our data retention regulations of 2009. It also raised the issue of an absolute period of time for which data needed were retained and the possibility that no consideration was being given to whether all data needed to be retained for the same length of time. The new Bill therefore makes the data retention period not 12 months but a maximum of 12 months to provide for some flexibility if appropriate.

Stephen McCabe: When I look back to the start of this Parliament, I cannot help thinking that the Home Secretary is changing from the protection of freedoms queen into Mrs Snoop. Is not the real reason we have an emergency that it has taken three months for the coalition partners to agree a deal on this security measure?

Theresa May: No. Proper government is about looking at these judgments properly and giving them full consideration to ensure that we give the right and appropriate response. This coalition Government have been very clear, from day one, that we were looking at the balance between security and civil liberties. That is why when we came into office we took decisions to make certain changes such as changing the pre-charge detention period from 28 days to 14 days. We are doing what is right and appropriate to ensure that people’s privacy and liberties are protected while, at the same time, our agencies have the capabilities they need to keep people safe.

Julian Smith: I thank the Home Secretary for her statement and for the Government’s laser-like focus on keeping British families safe while ensuring that the legal framework is robust. Does she agree that our intelligence services have been subject to much unfair criticism of late—unfair because they operate within the law, because they are unable to speak fully for themselves, and because they are among the best intelligence services in the world?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are very fortunate in the quality of people we have in our security and intelligence agencies. They do a job that they have to do day by day, relentlessly, in the pursuit of terrorists and those who would seek to do this country harm in a variety of ways, and they do that job very well. This House should never shrink from commending them on the work that they do and thanking them, on behalf of the public, for that work.

Gavin Shuker: Prior to 8 April, did the Home Secretary receive legal advice that asserted that existing legislation was deficient and that remedial action through a legislative route would be necessary?

Theresa May: First, Ministers do not refer at the Dispatch Box to legal advice that they have received. As I said earlier, the European Court of Justice case was going through the European Court of Justice, and a number of outcomes could have resulted. Until it made its determination, nobody knew the precise nature of it and the issues that would need to be addressed.

Robert Halfon: I welcome the measures that the Home Secretary has set out and the measured way in which she put them before the House. On protecting
	individuals’ rights to privacy, will she consider, in the long term, establishing a British internet Bill of rights to codify the things that she set out and give the public a framework whereby they know that their rights will be protected?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend makes an interesting suggestion that slightly echoes that made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) about privacy and the rights and responsibilities that people have on the internet. I would expect the whole question of privacy around the internet to be part of what the review looks at in terms of the powers and capabilities that we need and how we regulate those in an appropriate way that makes sure that we have the right balance.

Mike Gapes: I welcome this measured, responsible statement and the response by the shadow Home Secretary. The Home Secretary referred to the position with regard to Denmark and Ireland, which use implementations from primary legislation. Will she give us more information about other European countries? Is it possible that other countries with coalition Governments will have already made the necessary changes and that others might take a lot longer than this, leaving a hole in European security?

Theresa May: Other countries are having to address this in terms of their own legislative frameworks. For some, the timetable will be different from the timetable we are adopting, purely because of their situation and what they need to do. We would expect that, in due course, the European Commission will look at the issue of the EU data retention directive that has been struck down and whether it and member states will wish to come together to put in place a further directive. However, that will not be for some time, hence the need to take action in the interim.

Andrew Jones: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. Is not this a replacement of pre-existing powers to ensure that criminals do not slip through the net and escape justice?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend is absolutely right and puts it extremely well.

Derek Twigg: The Home Secretary said that “the Government will also introduce a package of measures to reassure the public that their rights to security and privacy are equally protected.” What will the key parts of that package be?

Theresa May: Yes, I did refer to that. We are going to ensure that we have more transparency from Government through the information that we will be publishing in an annual transparency report, within parameters. We will also reduce the number of bodies that are able to have access to the communications data, establish a privacy and civil liberties board based on the US model, have a review of the capabilities and powers that are necessary against the threats we face and the ways in which those are regulated, and lead discussions with other Governments on how we deal with these matters of sharing data across borders.

Philip Hollobone: While thanking the Home Secretary for her statement and praising her role in wishing to protect the civil liberties of those of us who do not want to be blown up, is not the truth of the matter that the reason for the three-month delay between the European Court judgment and today’s announcement of legislation is that the Lib Dem part of the coalition has been umming and aahing over this issue for far too long? I see that no Lib Dems are on the Front Bench to support her while she speaks.

Theresa May: I have to point out to my hon. Friend that the Minister for Crime Prevention was present when I made my statement and for the early part of these questions. As I am sure my hon. Friend will recognise, other Ministers were present on the Front Bench for the statement and the shadow Home Secretary’s response but have had to go to undertake other business. In fact, over this period we have been making sure that we are responding to the judgment from the European Court in a way that is appropriate and maintains the capabilities that we need in the UK.

Bob Blackman: Will my right hon. Friend expand on the legal protections there will be to prevent improper use of the data collected so that the only people who will have something to fear from this legislation are criminals, and the ordinary public will be protected?

Theresa May: A wide range of protections regarding access to communications data already exists within the legislation in relation to the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, access to interception, and the communications data retention regulations. As I said earlier, the whole question of access to communications data was scrutinised by a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament, which, having looked at these processes, concluded that they were entirely appropriate.
	However, we will ensure that access to retained communications data will be limited to access that is considered to be necessary and proportionate through the RIPA process, court orders, or any further mechanisms specifically approved by Parliament.

Gavin Williamson: Will my right hon. Friend assure my constituents that this legislation will be an important and vital tool in the police’s battle against child abusers and those who seek to perpetrate paedophile acts?

Theresa May: I can absolutely give my hon. Friend that assurance. Communications data in particular are an absolutely vital tool in investigations and in bringing criminals to justice. They have been a particularly important tool in recent cases of child abuse, and they are also important with regard to the serious crimes I mentioned earlier, including murder. It is vital that we have access to this tool, in order to be able to keep people safe and bring perpetrators of those crimes to justice.

Lindsay Hoyle: Last but certainly not least, the hon. and gallant Gentleman Bob Stewart.

Bob Stewart: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I believe we have a duty to pass this fast-track legislation quickly. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, unless we do so, the police and the security services will not have the powers that may stop innocent citizens of this country dying?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend is right. I have been clear in my responses that I fear that, if we do not ensure that we maintain these capabilities, not only will we see criminals going about their business without the police being able to deal with them appropriately and bring them to justice, but we could see innocent lives being lost.

Industrial Action Update

Francis Maude: With permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to update the House on today’s industrial action called by some public sector unions.
	I start by thanking the large majority of public servants who have turned up for work today as normal. This reflects their dedication to their public service calling.
	This is the fourth one-day public sector strike in the past few years. The proportion of public sector workers going on strike has fallen on each occasion. So far as the civil service is concerned, it has fallen from 32% in November 2011 to 23% in May 2012 and 21% in March 2013, and today it has fallen below 20%. Every jobcentre opened this morning. Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has seen a surge in the use of digital services, which helps the drive towards greater efficiency and more convenience for taxpayers. I am told there have been no major issues at the borders. The majority of schools have remained open.
	The Government have put in place contingency measures to minimise the impact of strike action, but where there is disruption the responsibility lies unequivocally with union leaders.
	When unions go on strike, it is hard-working people who suffer the consequences most, including vulnerable people who depend on public services and parents who are forced to take a day off work or arrange child care because their local school is closed. These strikes risk damaging those who are working hard to get this country moving again.
	There can be no escape from the realities of our economic situation. We are still dealing with the damage left by the great recession. As part of their long-term economic plan, the Government have taken tough decisions to reduce the budget deficit—which I remind the House was the biggest in the developed world. This includes pay restraint while protecting those earning under £21,000. By reforming public sector pensions in the way we have done, we have ensured that they remain among the very best available, while making them affordable and sustainable into the future.
	We cannot afford to go backwards. It is only by taking difficult decisions in the long-term interests of the country that we can deliver the economic growth that we need if we want to carry on investing in our public services, our schools and hospitals and the dedicated staff who work in them.
	Trade unions can, of course, play a constructive role in the modern workplace. That is why the Government will continue to talk with the unions and listen to their concerns.
	The right to strike is an important freedom under the law, but it must be exercised responsibly. Only one in five of eligible members of Unite and Unison took part in these recent ballots, meaning the strikes were approved by only a fraction of the unions’ eligible members.
	The National Union of Teachers—the only teaching union calling a strike today— has not even balloted its members. Instead, it relies on a ballot from back in
	2012—nearly two years ago. This cannot be right. The more often unions call strikes based on outdated mandates and ballots with pitifully low levels of support, the stronger the case becomes for reform of the law.
	Growth is returning to the British economy, but we have a responsibility to ensure that the economy that emerges from the great recession is strong and sustainable. We must never again allow Britain’s public finances to fall so catastrophically into deficit.
	I commend this statement to the House.

Michael Dugher: May I begin by thanking the Minister for advance sight of his statement in the nick of time?
	Let us be clear: we on these Benches have said repeatedly that no one wants to see strikes, not least because of the impact they have on children, parents and all of us who rely on our vital local public services.
	The Minister is right to say that it is hard-working people who suffer the consequences most, but should not the Government bear much of the blame for the situation today? Instead of ramping up the rhetoric, the Government should have been getting people round the table. Strikes represent a failure on all sides, and all sides have a responsibility to prevent strikes from taking place.
	Will the Minister outline exactly what specific talks he has he had with the unions to prevent today’s strike action? What has he done specifically to encourage both sides to get round the table and prevent this industrial action? When was the last time he discussed the issue with the trade unions in his own Department and those more widely engaged in the public sector? What are the Government going to do to change their approach to prevent future strikes from happening in the future?
	Instead of a negotiated settlement being sought, have we not had yet another depressing demonstration of a Cabinet full of millionaires demonising the lowest paid workers in society? In local government, nearly 500,000 workers are paid less than the living wage.
	When the Minister mentioned outdated mandates and ballots with pitifully low support, I thought he was referring to the police and crime commissioner elections introduced by the Government. I remind him that the trade union legislation we have today was introduced by Margaret Thatcher, who was not known for her warmth towards the trade unions. We await any details of the Minister’s proposals—there was none in the statement.
	It is important to recognise that, if we look at the total number of all those eligible to vote in the Minister’s own Horsham constituency, where he enjoys a comfortable majority, we will see that he secured only 38% of support at the last general election. No one would question his legitimacy—or, indeed, that of any Member—to be a Member of this House. Members of this House are in no position to lecture the unions about legitimacy. At the last general election—an election the Conservatives failed to win, by the way—the Conservative party secured only 36% of the popular vote, but here it is, four years later, still in office, so it is a bit rich for Ministers to be lecturing anyone else about legitimacy.
	This week we have seen the ongoing, unedifying spectacle of the Minister rowing in public once again with his own civil service. He is like a man trying to fight everyone in the pub at the same time. When the country needs to see a negotiated settlement, what have we got? We have ministerial belligerence revelling in confrontation, where strike action by the unions is almost a public policy success for a Government desperate for a fight. It is sabre rattling, it is union bashing and it is playing politics. It is a deliberate distraction and, frankly, it is pathetic.
	We are all desperate to see the Government getting all sides around the table to reach a negotiated settlement so that teachers can get back to teaching and vital local government workers can get back to work. The truth is that Ministers are making that task harder, not easier.

Francis Maude: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the succession of compliments he paid me. Perhaps I can deal with some of the issues he raised. He first raised the issue of the legitimacy of the Government. I point out that the parties that form the coalition Government secured the support of nearly 60% of the voters at the last election, which compares with the 29% that his party secured, so I am grateful to him for drawing attention to that.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about discussions with the unions, which is a very important question. When we dealt with the long overdue issue of public sector pension reform, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and I conducted long discussions and negotiations with the TUC over a long period. They were incredibly valuable, and as a result we were able to make some changes to the configuration of the proposals. That enabled us both to secure public sector pensions that still remain among the very best available, on a basis that was sustainable and affordable for the future, and to meet the particular concerns of particular unions. The process was valuable, and if the hon. Gentleman talked to any of the trade union leaders who took part in it, he would find that they say that that enterprise was taken forward in a spirit of proper partnership and deliberation.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about recent discussions with the trade unions. I can tell him that talks were planned with the civil service unions a couple of weeks ago, but they had to be aborted because the Public and Commercial Services Union was picketing the building in which the discussions were to take place. None of the union leaders felt able to cross the picket line so, sadly, the discussions had to be postponed.

Michael Dugher: Would you have crossed the picket line?

Francis Maude: Yes, I would, but it takes two to take part in discussions, so that was all a bit unfortunate.
	Let me point out that
	“public sector pay restraint will have to continue through this parliament. There is no way we should be arguing for higher pay when the choice is between higher pay and bringing unemployment down… That’s something we cannot do, should not do and will not do”,
	and
	“the priority now has to be to preserve jobs. I think that’s a recognition that everybody would see all round the country. We have got to do everything we can to preserve employment”.
	Those are not my words, but those of the shadow Chancellor and the Leader of the Opposition.
	It is just worth pointing out that all the right hon. Gentlemen’s brave words supporting public sector pay restraint fall away when we understand how much money the Labour party gets from the unions that have called the strikes today. What is it? Some £23.6 million has been given to the Labour party since the current Leader of the Opposition became its leader. Unite has donated £12.5 million, Unison £5.7 million and the GMB £5.2 million. That is why it is no surprise, as the Prime Minister pointed out yesterday, that the Labour party’s guidance on the strikes is: “Do we support strikes? No. Will we condemn strikes? No.” Weak, weak, weak.

Bob Stewart: Does my right hon. Friend agree that pay restraint has helped to keep jobs and helped to reduce the deficit we face in this country?

Francis Maude: My hon. Friend is completely right. About £12 billion will have been saved as a result of pay restraint in the current spending round period, which is equivalent to the cost of employing 65,000 teachers or 71,000 nurses over that time. The 5% pay claim made by PCS for the civil service would cost £500 million every year, which is equivalent to further civil servant work force reductions of 18,000. Every increase in pay means fewer jobs.

Diana Johnson: The Electoral Commission report on the police and crime commissioner elections in November 2012 stated that the turnout of 15.1% was
	“the lowest recorded level of participation at a peacetime non-local government election in the UK.”
	Does that mean that the Government’s flagship policy of police and crime commissioners and those who have been elected lack any legitimacy?

Francis Maude: I point out to the hon. Lady that what the police do locally affects every single resident in the area, and every single resident over the age of 18 has the right to vote in those elections. When unions call strikes that affect local residents, parents and vulnerable people who depend on public services, such people are not consulted. It is not asking very much to require a union, when it calls its members out on strike in ways that damage the public, to have to rely on a vote of substantive quantity, with a majority behind it.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call birthday boy Sir Tony Baldry.

Tony Baldry: Was it not Lord Hutton, a former Labour Cabinet Minister, who made it clear that as we are all living longer, everyone will have to pay more into their pensions and to work longer? Has my right hon. Friend had any shadow of a scintilla of a suggestion from the shadow Chancellor that if Labour were elected, it would treat either public sector pensions or public sector pay in any way differently from the present Government?

Francis Maude: My right hon. Friend asks a very pertinent question. The answer is that we do not know. There has been no suggestion of any increase, but we note that when Mr Len McCluskey recently promised to fund the Labour party campaign from Unite’s political fund, he said that he expected a union representative to sit at the Cabinet table. I think we know what the answer to that one will be.

David Winnick: Is the Minister aware that, despite all the Tory smears and slurs today, those taking industrial action are fighting for justice and fairness, and that they have absolutely nothing to be ashamed about? As for trade union money coming to Labour, what about the vast sums that the richest people in the country have been giving to the Tories in recent weeks, and rightly so, because the Tory Government are out, as they always have been, to defend the interests of the richest people in this country?

Francis Maude: I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman, after all his time in Parliament, might have come up with something a little better and more original.

David Winnick: It is the truth.

Francis Maude: The truth is that the coalition Government inherited the biggest budget deficit in the world—bigger than in Greece, Spain, Portugal or Ireland—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Barnsley East (Michael Dugher) says, cheerfully, that we should have cleared it by now. Yes, if we had inherited a country in a better state than that in which he left it, the deficit might have been cleared by now. The truth is that we now have the strongest growing economy in the developed world, and part of that is undoubtedly due to the difficult decisions made in the long-term interests of the country, with precious little support from Opposition Front Benchers.

Mark Pritchard: Will the Minister join me in thanking all the teachers in Shropshire and in Telford and Wrekin who have turned up for work today? Does he agree that this minority strike is causing huge disruption to families and parents throughout the county of Shropshire, and that teachers must get back to work as soon as possible?

Francis Maude: I join my hon. Friend in thanking, as I did at the start of statement, all those public sector workers—the vast majority—who have gone to work today, despite the blandishments and calls to go on strike. They recognise that their public service ethos means that they want to be at work to support the people they are there to provide services for. I hope that the strikes, which are based on very old mandates and very little support among union members, will come to an end.

Stephen Pound: The Minister referred to the suffering of hard-working people. May I try to persuade him that many of the people striking or supporting the strike today are also suffering and are also hard-working, and that strike action is a course of last resort? This action has not been taken lightly, but with a heavy heart.

Francis Maude: The hon. Gentleman, for whom I have some respect, says that strikes are not entered into lightly, but as far as the union leaders are concerned, they have been entered into very lightly. The NUT leaders did not call a ballot; they relied on a ballot that is two years old, and did not consult their members. The leaderships of the other unions—Unite, Unison and the GMB—have called this strike despite having recent ballots with extraordinarily low levels of support for strike action. I absolutely know that no one goes on strike lightly, but I think that when the hon. Gentleman looks at this, in his heart of hearts, he will conclude that trade unions leaders have called the strikes lightly and that they are causing damage to vulnerable people.

Rob Wilson: Many of my constituents will be inconvenienced today because of the politically motivated actions of union leaders. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the private sector has absorbed cuts to pay and pensions due to the circumstances in which the country found itself, and that unfortunately, other sectors including the public sector will have to do the same?

Francis Maude: My hon. Friend draws out a really important point, which is that since the recession, pay in the public sector has risen by more than it has in the private sector. The comparators show that average pay in the public sector is higher than in the private sector. I know that there are people on low pay in the public sector, as there are in the private sector, but the fact is that, given the appalling legacy that the outgoing Labour Government left the coalition Government, there have been tough decisions to be made and many people have had to make sacrifices along the way.

Alex Cunningham: More than 1,000 jobs have gone from Stockton borough alone since this Government came to power, and the value of public sector pay, including for some of the lowest-paid part-time workers in our communities, has gone down by about 20% since 2010. Just 1% of £6,000, which is what many of those people are paid, would buy a loaf of bread each week for a year. If the Government can afford to give millionaires a tax cut worth many times more than public sector workers get paid in a year, why can they not find a way to better reward the people who clean the streets, empty the bins and look after our most vulnerable people?

Francis Maude: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. In his own area, many jobs have been created in the private sector, and the local growth initiatives that my right hon. and hon. Friends launched earlier this week will bring even more jobs there.

Alex Cunningham: In the north-east, unemployment is going up.

Francis Maude: I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that, for every increase in public sector pay, there is a price to be paid in lost jobs.

Robert Halfon: Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge that there are millions of trade unionists who have not gone on strike today, a third of whom vote Conservative? I ask him to tread very carefully
	in regard to getting rid of the majority principle. I accept that it is important to have annual or regular ballots, as he has described, but if a law were brought in to remove the majority principle, it could have implications for other organisations and institutions.

Francis Maude: I hear what my hon. Friend says. He has rightly been a passionate supporter of people’s right to join a trade union. He has made the point that trade unions are an embodiment of much of what we believe in as the big society and civil society, and I agree with him on that. He will also know from the things I have been saying during the four years that I have had the privilege to hold this office that I have resisted the repeated blandishments to go down the path of further legislation. I have consistently said that the more often the unions call strike action irresponsibly on the basis of outdated mandates and ballots with very low levels of support, the stronger the case for reform of the law becomes. The action that has been called for today has made that case significantly stronger.

Eilidh Whiteford: Public sector workers have taken disproportionate real-terms cuts in their pay, conditions and living standards over the past five years, and no one has been harder hit than those in lower-paid public sector jobs. The Scottish Government are committed to paying at least the living wage of £7.65 an hour to all their public sector workers and have guaranteed no compulsory redundancies. Why cannot the United Kingdom Government make similar commitments?

Francis Maude: What the hon. Lady says is simply not the case. Over the past five years, public sector pay has increased by an average of 13%, which is more than four times the average increase of 3% in the private sector. As far as the lowest-paid people are concerned, we have been at pains throughout this process to exempt people earning below £21,000 from any pay freezes, so what she says is simply not correct.

Nigel Adams: As hundreds of schoolchildren across Selby are being denied access to their education by the National Union of Teachers today, what message does the Minister have for the hundreds of families affected, including the parents who have been forced to pay for child care, and for the businesses that have been forced to give people time off work because of this illegitimate action by the NUT?

Francis Maude: I would invite them to reflect that the responsibility for the damage that is undoubtedly being caused, despite all the effective contingency measures that we have put in place, lies squarely on the shoulders of the union leaders who have called this strike action on the basis of inadequate or outdated mandates. I would also invite them to ask the Labour party where it was when the strikes were called and whether it condemned them, and to look at the correlation between the amount of money paid to the Labour party by those unions and the Labour party’s action.

Mary Glindon: I support the public sector workers withdrawing their labour today, and I am pleased to say that I am an associate member
	of the Public and Commercial Services Union, which is not affiliated to our party. The Minister has said that we cannot afford to go back, but he seems happy to take public servants back with a 20% cut to their living standards as a result of Government policy.

Francis Maude: It simply is not the case that public sector workers have suffered more than private sector workers. I shall repeat this at dictation speed: public sector pay has risen in the past five years—the period since the great recession—by more than pay in the private sector has risen.

Robert Jenrick: Will my right hon. Friend join me in thanking the teachers and staff in my constituency, many of whom are union members, who have ensured that all but two schools there have remained open today? One of the two that have closed is a special school, and the parents have found it incredibly difficult to make alternative child care arrangements. How can it possibly be right for those parents to suffer what they have suffered today on the basis of a ballot taken two years ago that provided such a small mandate?

Francis Maude: My hon. Friend makes a really powerful point. I join him in supporting and thanking all those people, including governors and other volunteers, who have rallied round to ensure that, wherever possible, schools could be kept open. That is very much to their credit. The strikes have been called on the basis of increasingly thin mandates, and people’s determination to keep public services open and available has increased. It is particularly wrong that a special school of the type that my hon. Friend describes should have been closed in that way.

Gavin Shuker: Ordinary hard-working people, such as those I represent in Luton, should have the right to withdraw their labour in a responsible way and to stand up against people, many of whom are on much higher salaries, such as us here in Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman talks of mandates and legitimacy. Some police and crime commissioners were recently elected on the strength of securing just 5% of first-preference votes. Does he accept that that shows the lunacy of what he is saying?

Francis Maude: I repeat the point that I made earlier, which is that all local residents are affected by policing decisions and that all local residents who are voters have the right to vote in those elections. The constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) whose children have been denied access to the special school they depend on were never consulted about this. They had no say in it; they just have to take what happens as a result of a strike called by union leaders on flimsy, outdated mandates, and I think that that is wrong.

Philip Hollobone: Parents in Kettering whose children have been affected by today’s industrial action have telephoned me this morning to make the reasonable point that parents are now subject to fines if they take their children out of school during term time but that such legislation does not apply to teachers who deny loads of children their education for
	a day. Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that very reasonable point when drawing up future legislation to prevent such industrial action in schools?

Francis Maude: I hear what my hon. Friend says; he makes an interesting suggestion. Children being able to attend school on a predictable and regular basis is incredibly important in relation not only to their education but to the interests of their hard-working parents who want to go to work in order to support their families week in, week out. When arbitrary action is called in this way, based on flimsy and outdated mandates, damage is done to children and to their parents.

Jim Cunningham: As somebody who has taken part in negotiations and been involved in strikes, I assure the Minister that people are very reluctant to strike. He has to understand that the trade unions are reflecting the concern over the cost of living because the purchasing power of wages has dropped by about 6% over the past three or four years. I urge everybody in the House to stop having a slanging match, because at some point, as the Minister and I know, he will have to sit down with the very same trade unions and negotiate a settlement. I urge him to do so as soon as possible.

Francis Maude: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but I remind him that negotiations and discussions with the civil service trade unions were due to take place in the Cabinet Office only two or three weeks ago. Sadly, that meeting had to be aborted because the PCS was picketing the premises where the meeting was to take place and none of the union leaders was willing to cross the picket line.

Marcus Jones: Is my right hon. Friend as concerned as I am that many of my constituents will be forced to take a day off work today—and that
	many of them will lose a day’s pay—to look after their children because of a strike that was balloted on more than two years ago?

Francis Maude: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Those people will be very resentful that their attempts to go to work and earn a living to support their families have been frustrated in that way.

David Nuttall: My constituents in Bury, Ramsbottom and Tottington will be astonished to learn that the NUT strike is being justified on the basis of a ballot that was held almost two years ago. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there should be a much shorter period between a ballot and any action, and that it should be measured in weeks rather than years?

Francis Maude: That is exactly the issue that has been raised by the circumstances in which these strikes have been called. The ballots are very outdated. The NUT ballot took place nearly two years ago. Why did the leadership of the NUT have so little confidence in balloting their members on strike action again? Is it because they saw what happened to the other unions, such as Unite and Unison, that did hold ballots, which saw less than 20% of eligible members voting and very small numbers of eligible voters voting in favour of strike action? Possibly. The fact is that these strikes are being held on the basis of flimsy and outdated mandates. The case for reform of the law gets stronger every time that happens.

Robert Buckland: Does my right hon. Friend agree that those who say that they do not support the strikes, yet in the same breath fail to condemn them, take the art of casuistry to new heights?

Francis Maude: I could not put it better myself.

The UK’s Justice and Home Affairs Opt-outs

[Relevant documents: Twenty-first Report from the European Scrutiny Committee of Session 2013-14, The UK’s block opt-out of pre-Lisbon criminal law and policing measures, HC 683, and the Government response, HC 978; Ninth Report from the Home Affairs Committee of Session 2013-14, Pre-Lisbon Treaty EU police and criminal justice measures: the UK’s opt-in decision, HC 615, and the Government response, HC 954; Eighth Report from the Justice Committee of Session 2013-14, Ministry of Justice measures in the JHA block opt-out, HC 605, and the Government response, HC 972; First Joint Report from the European Scrutiny, Home Affairs and Justice Committees of Session 2013-14, The Government’s response to the Committees’ Report on the 2014 block opt-out decision, HC 1177, and the Government response in the letter of 6 April 2014 from the Home Secretary and the Justice Secretary to the Chairs of the three Committees; Fifth Report from the European Scrutiny Committee, HC 219-v, Chapter 8; Decision pursuant to Article 10 of Protocol 36 to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Cm 8671, July 2013; and Decision pursuant to Article 10(5) of Protocol 36 to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Cm 8897, July 2014.]

Theresa May: I beg to move,
	That this House has considered the UK’s Justice and Home Affairs opt-outs.
	I have just noticed the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) sitting in solitary splendour on the Opposition Front Bench.
	On 24 March this year, Francis Paul Cullen was sentenced to 15 years in prison for a series of sexual assaults on children. He committed those offences over a period of more than three decades while serving as a priest in Nottingham and Derbyshire. His victims were both boys and girls, and were aged between six and 16. The judge said that their
	“whole lives have been blighted”
	by this
	“cunning, devious, arrogant”
	man. Indeed, one of them tried to take their own life.
	When his crimes came to light in 1991, Cullen fled to Tenerife to evade justice. Last year, after 22 years on the run and two decades of further suffering for his victims, he was extradited from Spain on a European arrest warrant. This spring, he pleaded guilty to 15 counts of indecent assault, five counts of indecency with a child and one count of attempted buggery. After a lifetime of waiting, his victims who were watching in that courtroom in Derby finally saw justice done.
	That harrowing case and too many others like it form the backdrop to today’s debate. Francis Cullen is just one of the despicable and cowardly criminals who have fled our shores to try to escape British justice. In an earlier age, he might have succeeded. Under the system of extradition that existed before the European arrest warrant—the 1957 European convention on extradition—his 22 years on the run would have rendered him immune from prosecution by the Spanish authorities, helping to
	bar his extradition back to the UK. It is thanks to the European arrest warrant that Cullen is behind bars at last.
	I know that many right hon. and hon. Members have concerns about the way in which that measure has operated since the Labour party signed us up to it, and I have shared many of those concerns. That is why I have legislated to reform the operation of the arrest warrant and increase the protections that we can offer to those who are wanted for extradition, particularly if they are British subjects.
	First, Members were concerned that British citizens were being extradited for disproportionately minor offences. We changed the law to allow an arrest warrant to be refused in respect of minor offences. A British judge will now consider whether the alleged offence and likely sentence are sufficient to make the person’s extradition proportionate. Secondly, Members were concerned that people could be extradited for actions that are not against the law of this land. We have clarified the rules on dual criminality to ensure that an arrest warrant must be refused if all or part of the conduct for which the person is wanted took place in the United Kingdom and it is not a criminal offence in the UK.

Edward Leigh: These are serious matters. Nobody wants to protect criminals. However, there is a lot of concern about these matters in the House of Commons, not least because it is difficult to argue to our people that we want to take powers back from the European Union if we are giving it powers. Will my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance that although this is effectively an Adjournment debate on a one-line Whip, there will be a substantive vote after a proper debate so that the House of Commons is able to vote on these matters?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend causes me to progress to another part of my speech. I want to make the situation absolutely clear. As he knows, we have had a number of debates on this matter in the House, and the Justice Secretary and I have made a number of appearances before various Select Committees, including the European Scrutiny Committee. We had hoped and intended that by this stage we would have reached agreement on the full package that we are negotiating with the European Commission and other member states. That has not happened. The package was discussed at the General Affairs Council towards the end of June, but some reservations have still been placed on it, so we do not yet have the final agreement. However, we believed that we had sufficient knowledge to make it right and proper to have this debate in the House today.

Tony Baldry: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Theresa May: Sorry, I am still responding to my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh). I am trying to answer his question as carefully and clearly as possible.
	The House will have the opportunity to vote on this matter in due course, but having said that we would bring the matter back to the House before the summer recess, I thought it right and proper to give the House the opportunity to have this debate.

Tony Baldry: I am very grateful to the Home Secretary. I apologise if I interrupted her.
	I am sure that the Home Secretary will make it clear to the House that if we do not have the European arrest warrant, we will need to have a large number of individual treaties with individual countries. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) and I are both old enough to have practised at the Bar when that was the situation. I remember that, whether one was prosecuting or defending, it could take ages and ages, going to Horseferry Road magistrates court time after time, with adjournment after adjournment, year after year, before someone was extradited.

Theresa May: My right hon. Friend makes an extremely valid point. It is the point that I had hoped to illustrate with the case that I set out at the beginning of my speech, which is that the European arrest warrant has given us distinct advantages in our ability to have criminals extradited back to the United Kingdom and, indeed, to extradite people elsewhere when they have committed crimes that warrant that extradition.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Theresa May: I will, if my hon. Friend will wait a moment.
	There have, of course, been a number of concerns that we have addressed in our legislation. That is an important point. I was in the middle of setting those out, but before I go on with the list, I will give way to my hon. Friend.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The Government, in their July 2013 Command Paper, said that
	“it may be possible to negotiate bilateral treaties…with the EU”.
	The EU now has legal personality and I believe that there is legal advice, at least in the Ministry of Justice, that says that a bilateral treaty with the EU would be possible. Why is that avenue not being pursued?

Theresa May: There are two issues in relation to that. First, people often say, “That’s what Denmark has; it is able to negotiate directly because it has a complete opt-out on these matters.” However, Denmark does not have any other legal avenue for opting in to those measures. As the Commission has made clear, given that there is another legal avenue for the United Kingdom—as negotiated by the previous Government—that is what should be pursued, rather than a separate extradition treaty with the EU. Secondly, I say to right hon. and hon. Members who think that some form of bilateral treaties would be a way of getting around the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, that Denmark has been required to submit to the jurisdiction of the ECJ as part of the conditions of agreeing a treaty with the European Union.

Keith Vaz: The Home Secretary is right that the European arrest warrant is needed and right in principle, but the Home Affairs Committee was concerned about the way it has operated. I know she has worked hard to put forward changes, with forum bars and other such issues, but at the end of the day she does not have control over the judiciary in a country
	such as Poland. Some of those countries are issuing warrants that are executed in our country, and it is extremely difficult to control that.

Theresa May: That is one of the issues we are addressing. One problem that has been raised—particularly in relation to the country that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned—is the number of arrest warrants being issued for offences at the lower end of the scale that would perhaps not be treated in the same way in the United Kingdom. That is why we have considered the issue of proportionality, and introduced the requirement that a British judge will consider whether the alleged offence and likely sentence is sufficient to make someone’s extradition proportionate. We have written the need to address that issue of potential disproportionality into our legislation, and it will come into effect soon.

Keith Vaz: I am grateful for that information. Further to what the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) said, the Committee also decided, because of the concerns of so many Members, that there should be a separate vote specifically on the European arrest warrant when this package comes before the House. Will the Home Secretary agree to give the House a separate vote on that?

Theresa May: I am well aware of the views that the Committee put forward in its report, and as I indicated in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), we have not yet agreed absolutely the final package with other European member states and the European Commission, and some technical reservations have been made. We are working on that and expect to be able to remove those reservations, and the House will have an opportunity to vote in due course.

Gerald Howarth: My right hon. Friend said that we have legislated in a way that protects us from the issuance of trivial European arrest warrants, but surely those will be subject to the European Court of Justice. They could, in future, strike out our own legislation, reinforcing concerns among Conservative Members that this Parliament continues to be sidelined in favour of the European Court of Justice.

Theresa May: My hon. Friend should look to other member states in the European Union that are already subject to the European Court of Justice and already exercise a test of proportionality on such matters. To return to the point I made earlier, although some may think that an arrangement similar to that held by Denmark would get over that problem, it would not because part of the arrangement is precisely being subject to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice.

John Redwood: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Theresa May: If I may I would like to get to the end of this list of measures so that right hon. and hon. Members are clear about the provisions we have made in UK legislation. Hon. Members were concerned about arrest warrants being issued for investigatory purposes rather than prosecutions, and that is the third issue we addressed. We have legislated to allow people to visit the issuing
	state temporarily to be questioned ahead of an extradition hearing in the UK, if they consent to do so. Members were also concerned about the prospect of people being charged with offences over and above those specified in their arrest warrant if they chose to consent to extradition, so our fourth measure is to lift the requirement that individuals lose their right to “speciality protection” when they consent to extradition.
	Finally, a number of hon. Members—particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois), who has spoken passionately in the Chamber about the case of his constituent, Andrew Symeou—were concerned about people being detained for long periods overseas before being charged or standing trial. Our fifth change, therefore, was to change the law to prevent lengthy pre-trial detention. No longer will people be surrendered and have to wait months or years for a decision to be made to charge or try them.

John Redwood: Does the Home Secretary understand that either this House is sovereign in criminal justice or the European Union is, and that if we opt into this measure, the European Union becomes sovereign? She has rightly pointed out lots of defects with the arrest warrant, but once we have given away our sovereignty we have no absolute right to stop or change things in the way that we can if we keep the authority here.

Theresa May: The point I have made to my right hon. Friend, and others in the past, is that of course there is a question about the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, and we have already opted into measures post the Lisbon treaty where the Court operates. We have seen decisions by the ECJ that have been unhelpful—perhaps I can put it like that—such as the Metock case, or the case I referred to earlier when making a statement to the House. We believe that the Court should not have the final say over matters such as substantive criminal law or international relations, and that is why we are not rejoining more than 20 minimum standards measures on matters such as racism and xenophobia. That is why we will not be rejoining the EU-US extradition agreement, and we should be able to renegotiate as we see fit. I am clear that we should have the final say over our laws.
	By already opting out of certain European measures, we have taken powers back from Europe that had already been signed away. The process we were left with, which was negotiated by the previous Government, was an unappealing choice between the potential impacts of ECJ jurisdiction over those measures that it is in the national interest for us to rejoin, or the prospect and dangers of an operational gap.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Theresa May: I am being generous and will continue to be generous to my right hon. and hon. Friends, all of whom I know have firm views on this matter. I say to hon. Members, however, that I too have firm views about ensuring that from 1 December this year, our police and law enforcement agencies can continue to do the job we want them to do in catching criminals and keeping people safe.

William Cash: As my right hon. Friend knows—she has said this already—there are concerns that our laws are being made elsewhere in this context. She then says that in fact we will keep control over our laws. That is precisely not what is happening because, as she knows from the statement she made earlier today, through section 3 of the European Communities Act 1972, the European Court of Justice overrides not only this Parliament voluntarily, but also our Supreme Court.

Theresa May: As I indicated earlier, the House will introduce its own legislation to ensure that we are able to do what we wish to do in terms of the powers of our law enforcement agencies and our security and intelligence agencies. We must, however, make a choice on some of these measures, and the question is whether we believe that we need such measures to keep the public safe and ensure that people are brought to justice, or not. I believe that with the measures we have negotiated, both I and the Justice Secretary—he has also been working hard on this matter—have recognised those issues and will ensure that our police and law enforcement agencies are able to do the job we want them to do.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am extremely grateful to the Home Secretary and sorry to trouble her a second time. This argument that our whole security depends on the European arrest warrant must be false. An answer was given to the European Scrutiny Committee about how many indictable offences there were in the UK in one year, and the figure was 377,000. In a four-year period, however, there were only 507 requests for us to use a European arrest warrant to the continent. That is 125 a year against 377,000 indictments in this country. Our security is not dependent on the European arrest warrant.

Theresa May: I find my hon. Friend’s argument strange. He says that, simply because a small number of serious criminals such as murderers are extradited on the European arrest warrant compared with the number indicted here in the UK, we should not worry. If somebody has committed a murder and we wish to extradite them from another European member state, we should be able to do so. The EAW, as all those who work with it will recognise and confirm—it has been confirmed in evidence to Select Committees—is a better tool to use because it enables extradition to take place more quickly.
	As I have indicated, the Council of Europe arrangements, which were in place previously, had a time limit. Had the European arrest warrant not been in place, we would not have been able to extradite the individual I mentioned earlier, Mr Cullen, back to the UK to face justice, and his victims would not have seen justice done. All the provisions—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) mentions the DNA database from a sedentary position. He and I have a different opinion on the database because he would like everybody in the UK to be on it.
	All the EAW provisions to which I have referred have been made in UK law and will commence later this month. I believe they will make an important difference in the operation of the arrest warrant. The Labour Government could have made all those changes during the eight years they oversaw the EAW, but they failed to do so. That failure has coloured the views of many in the House and beyond it about the EAW, but it should not cloud the fact that the EAW is a vital tool for
	ensuring that justice is done in this country and for keeping the British public safe, as has been so clearly impressed on me and Committees of the House in evidence given by the police and prosecutors who use it. I take that responsibility as Home Secretary very seriously, and it underpins everything I say in the debate and the process that has brought us to this point.
	It might be helpful to remind hon. Members of the background. When without the promised referendum the previous Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), signed the UK up to the Lisbon treaty, he ceded more powers to the European institutions and gave up our veto over police and criminal justice matters. We got very little in return, but one of the few things we got from that flawed negotiation and imperfect treaty was the option to opt out of all the police and criminal justice measures that were agreed before the Lisbon treaty came into force. However, that opt-out had to be exercised en masse before the end of May 2014. Following votes in both Houses of Parliament last year, that is exactly what the Government did. That decision is irreversible and will come into effect on 1 December 2014. From that date, we must either opt back in to the smaller number of measures that we think are vital for the protection of the British people and other victims of crime, or face an operational gap that will hamper the efforts of our police and law enforcement agencies.
	When the Justice Secretary and I came to the House last July, we explained that we had listened carefully to the views of our law enforcement agencies and prosecutors, and concluded that a small number of measures that were subject to the opt-out decision add value in the fight against crime and the pursuit of justice, and that it would therefore be in our national interest to rejoin them. We listened to right hon. and hon. Members, and carefully considered the reports of the European Scrutiny Committee, the Home Affairs Committee and the Justice Committee, before opening formal negotiations with the European Commission, the Council and other member states.
	Good progress has been made, and I am pleased to be able to report that we have reached an in-principle deal with the Commission on the non-Schengen measures, which fall under its purview, and we have made good progress on the Schengen measures, on which the outline of a possible deal is now clear. I indicated earlier that the matter was discussed at the General Affairs Council on 24 June, but technical reservations remain, and discussions continue with the aim of allowing those reservations to be lifted. Therefore, the negotiations are ongoing, but as I have said, the Justice Secretary and I have been clear throughout that we will update Parliament as appropriate and give right hon. and hon. Members the opportunity to debate the issue. That is what we are doing today. Last week, we published the Command Paper—Cm 8897—which includes the full list of measures that were discussed at the General Affairs Council, and impact assessments on each of the measures. That fulfils the Government’s commitment to provide those impact assessments and further demonstrates our commitment to parliamentary scrutiny of the matter.
	Many were sceptical that a deal could be done, and many believed that the European Commission and other member states would force the UK into measures that we did not want to rejoin, but I am proud to say that we
	have been able to resist many of the changes demanded by others, and have not been pushed into rejoining a larger number of measures. We are clear that the deal is a good deal for the United Kingdom.
	One measure that we have successfully resisted joining is Prüm, a system that allows the police to check DNA, fingerprint and vehicle registration data. I have been clear in the House previously that we have neither the time nor the money to implement Prüm by 1 December. I have said that it will be senseless for us to rejoin it now and risk being infracted. Despite considerable pressure from the Commission and other member states, that remains the case.
	All hon. Members want the most serious crimes such as rapes and murders to be solved and their perpetrators brought to justice. In some cases, that will mean the police comparing DNA or fingerprint data with those held by other European forces. Thirty per cent. of those arrested in London are foreign nationals, so it is clear that that is an operational necessity. Therefore, the comparisons already happen, and must do so if we are to solve cross-border crime. I would be negligent in my duty to protect the British public if I did not consider the issue carefully.

William Cash: Will my right hon. Friend explain to the House why it is so important to have those cross-border co-operation arrangements with the EU and not with the entire world?

Theresa May: Our police forces of course co-operate with other police forces throughout the world in bringing criminals and perpetrators to justice. The European arrest warrant—I will repeat myself—is an extradition arrangement that improves on the extradition arrangements that we had previously. I recognise that there have been concerns about it, but we have legislated on those concerns here in this Parliament.
	I was describing the Prüm system, which is about the easy, efficient and effective comparison of data when appropriate. We have been clear that we cannot rejoin that on 1 December and would not seek to do so. However, in order for the House to consider the matter carefully, the Government will produce a business and implementation case and run a small-scale pilot with all the necessary safeguards in place. We will publish that by way of a Command Paper and bring the issue back to Parliament so that it can be debated in an informed way. We are working towards doing so by the end of next year. However, the decision on whether to rejoin Prüm would be one for Parliament. Unlike the Labour Government, who signed us up to that measure in the first place without any idea how much it would cost or how it would be implemented, the Government will ensure that Parliament has the full facts to inform its decision.
	On another subject, I know that my right hon. Friend the Justice Secretary will want to address the probation situation in his closing remarks—that is another measure we have successfully resisted rejoining.
	The Government propose to rejoin other measures in the national interest. We wish to rejoin the European supervision order, which allows British subjects to be bailed back to the UK rather than spending months abroad awaiting trial. That will stand alongside the reforms we have made to the European arrest warrant,
	and make it easier for people such as Mr Symeou to be bailed back to the UK and prevent such injustices from occurring in future.
	We are also seeking to rejoin the prisoner transfer framework decision, a measure that my right hon. Friend the Justice Secretary considers important. The framework helps us to remove foreign criminals from British jails—prisoners such as Ainars Zvirgzds, a Latvian national convicted of controlling prostitution, assault, and firearms and drug offences. In April 2012, he was sentenced to 13 and a half years imprisonment in the UK. Last month, he was transferred out of this country to a prison in Latvia, where he will serve the remainder of his sentence. Had it not been for the prison transfer measure, he would have remained in a British prison, at a cost to the British taxpayer of more than £100,000.
	We wish to rejoin the measure providing for joint investigation teams, so that we can continue to participate in cross-border operations such as Operation Birkhill. That collaboration with Hungary, funded by Eurojust and assisted by Europol, led to five criminals being sentenced at Croydon Crown court last month to a total of 36 years imprisonment for their involvement in trafficking more than 120 women into the United Kingdom from Hungary, the Czech Republic and Poland. One of those convicted, Vishal Chaudhary, lived in a luxury Canary Wharf penthouse and drove a flashy sports car bought from the money he made selling those women for sex. Chaudhary and his gang managed their operation from a semi-detached house on a suburban street in Hendon, and operated more than 40 brothels across London, including in Enfield and Brent. Their victims were threatened with abuse if they tried to contact their families. Some were forced to have sex with up to 20 clients a day. These are the victims of crime that the measures we are debating to day help. Joint investigation teams are a vital tool in the fight against modern slavery, a crime this House so passionately demonstrated earlier this week it wants to see tackled. I hope the House will support rejoining the measures that will help us to do that.

Keith Vaz: I support everything the Home Secretary has said in respect of these policing issues. However, why have we not rejoined the European criminal information system, which would have provided us with information on those who come into this country and already have criminal convictions?

Theresa May: We discussed the measure the right hon. Gentleman refers to in front of his Committee and other Committees. There are a number ways in which we deal with these matters in terms of exchanging information. I want to be sure that I am looking at the measures to which he is referring and I think that they are Council Framework Decisions 2009/315/JHA and 2009/316/JHA. They require member states to inform each other about convictions of EU nationals and are an important tool for sharing data. The reason I am hesitating here is that we were certainly discussing the possibility of rejoining this particular measure. [Interruption.] It is in the 35. Yes, that is why I was hesitating. The right hon. Gentleman said we were not
	in it and I thought it was in the 35 measures we are rejoining, precisely because it gives us the opportunity to share this information.
	We also wish to rejoin the Naples II convention, the principal tool for customs co-operation. Operation Stoplamp, which used this measure to exchange vital information with our partners, resulted in the seizure of 1.2 tonnes of cocaine with a street value of about £300 million—again, an outcome I am sure everyone in this House will welcome. We are also seeking to rejoin Europol, which played a key role in helping our law enforcement agencies to fight those criminals who tried to exploit British customers by adulterating our food with horsemeat. It is doing excellent work under the leadership of its British director, Rob Wainwright.
	Those are just a handful of examples that illustrate why our participation in these measures is in our national interest. Today’s debate is not about the flawed treaty to which the previous Labour Government signed us up; it is about the decisions we must take now to protect the public and keep the British people safe. The Government’s policy is clear: we have exercised the opt-out and negotiated a deal to rejoin a limited number of measures that we believe it is in the national interest for us to remain part of.
	I look forward with interest to the speech from the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), as it would be helpful to know the Opposition’s position on these various measures. Every time we debate them, we see a slightly different position coming forward. I am sorry that the shadow Home Secretary is not here to tell us herself, but perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will be able to tell us whether they would have exercised the opt-out that they negotiated. Would they have remained bound by all 130-plus measures, rather than negotiating a limited number in the national interest? Would they have changed the law to protect British citizens, as we have done in relation to the European arrest warrant? Would they have risked infraction proceedings by rejoining Prüm without fully considering the facts?
	The evidence suggests that the Opposition do not share the determination of this party and this Government to reduce the control Brussels has on our criminal justice system. Their position has always been to say one thing and do another. There was a manifesto promise for a vote on the Lisbon treaty, but they refused to hold a referendum. They said they would protect British red lines, but they gave up our veto in policing and criminal justice matters. They negotiated an opt-out and then voted against using it. That contrasts with the position taken by this Government. We support, and have exercised, the United Kingdom’s opt-out. We support the return of powers from Brussels to the UK. We support acting in the national interest by rejoining a limited number of measures to protect British citizens and the victims of crime. This is consistent with our approach to the Europe Union as a whole.

Michael Connarty: I notice that the title of the debate actually refers to opt-outs. Apart from Prüm, can the Home Secretary name one thing that they are not opting into that will make a significant difference in repatriating competence to the UK—one single issue apart from Prüm?

Theresa May: It is not that we are opting back into Prüm. We did not join Prüm in the first place, so that is rather different from the measures in the 35. My right hon. Friend the Justice Secretary has spoken in front of Select Committees on a number of occasions on the importance of not opting into those minimum standards measures in relation to the justice system. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman has a look at those.
	The Prime Minister has repeatedly taken tough action to stand up for Britain in Europe by cutting the EU budget, saving British taxpayers more than £8 billion, vetoing a new EU fiscal treaty that did not guarantee a level playing field for British businesses and refusing to spend British taxes on bailing out the euro. It is under this Prime Minister that Britain did not budge on the principle that it should be for the elected Heads of national Governments, not the European Parliament, to propose the President of the European Commission. What I have outlined today is another example of this Government standing up for the United Kingdom’s best interests, bringing powers back home while doing all we can to keep the British people safe. That is the sort of leadership in Europe that this country needs.

David Hanson: For 30 of the past 35 minutes, the Home Secretary had me on board. It was only in the last five minutes that she lost me. It was almost a first. I appreciate that we have a meeting of minds on several issues. I was probably more in tune with her than she is with some of her own right hon. and hon. Friends—an unusual situation in which to find myself.
	I thank the Home Secretary for her contribution, on which there is a large element of agreement with the Opposition. I also thank the three Select Committee Chairs, the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) and the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) for their contributions to the discussions on these key matters.
	We have been here before and I suspect, given what the Home Secretary said, that we will be here again before the end of the year. I can see from the contributions from her own side, in particular from Government Members here today who perhaps have a greater level of euroscepticism than I do, that there was not a universal welcome for her statement. There will not be a universal welcome for her projected policy positions later this year, but I want to be positive if I can and support the Home Secretary’s objectives.
	The motion today is that this House has considered, not decided on, the opt-outs. My first point is one the Home Secretary touched on, but we would welcome clarification. It goes back to the point raised by the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood): when will there be a final package on these measures and when will we be able to not just debate but vote on them? December is looming and I would like at some point to have an indication, from the Home Secretary or the Justice Secretary, of when we can expect to have a vote. At the moment, there is no clarity on when that final vote will be.

Keith Vaz: Will my Opposition Front Bench colleagues support a separate vote on the European arrest warrant? It caused the Home Affairs Committee a great deal of concern.

David Hanson: I am relaxed on that, but I do want the European arrest warrant put in place. We have had some safeguards, but I will outline in due course the reasons why I want to see it put in place. It would be helpful to have clarity on when the discussions will be concluded and can be voted on. I appreciate that the Home Secretary has some difficulties, but it would be helpful to the House, for the reasons set out by my right hon. Friend, to have an indication on when we can expect to have a complete package to vote on.

John Redwood: How will the right hon. Gentleman feel on 15 June next year, when some of us will commemorate Magna Carta’s 800th birthday and he will have been party to giving away a very big, fundamental principle under that charter of English law and English jurisdiction to a foreign power we cannot control?

David Hanson: The right hon. Gentleman will know that, as a Welsh Member of Parliament, I take a great interest in such matters. I will look at this from the perspective that I think the Home Secretary is looking at it from, which is: what is in the interests of reducing organised crime, child trafficking, prostitution, drug running and terrorist activities, and ensuring that we prevent future victims and have the best possible protections in place for the United Kingdom across Europe following negotiations?

Michael Connarty: My right hon. Friend has not dealt with the terrible accusation, which the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) has just made, that the EU is a foreign power. We are one of the 30 countries that control the EU. It is part of what we are. Idle talk of it as a “foreign power” shows where the right hon. Gentleman is. He should be in the United Kingdom Independence party, not the Tory party.

David Hanson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing out that nuance in the intervention by the right hon. Member for Wokingham. I regard myself as a European and British citizen and part of—

Philip Davies: I don’t.

David Hanson: I appreciate that others take a different view, but that is my view.
	I welcome today’s debate because I believe—again, I think the Home Secretary shares this belief—that crime and criminals do not respect national borders. Technology has moved on in the last 15 to 20 years, which means that there are a range of issues that need to be addressed not just within the boundaries of the United Kingdom, but across Europe as a whole. Free movement and new forms of criminal activity, such as cybercrime, require collective action across Europe.

William Cash: In this very interesting exchange between those on the Front Benches, who seem to be largely in agreement, let me ask the same question that I asked the Home Secretary. Would the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to explain to me and the House why we
	have an arrangement with the European Union on this basis and not one to deal with other murderers, traffickers and the rest of it in the rest of the world? Can he explain what is so special about the European Union in this context?

David Hanson: As I think the Home Secretary also indicated in our little tête-à-tête of agreement, there is a wider world outside Europe, but we have strong ties with Europe. We have free movement in Europe on a range of matters. We do not have free movement from outside the European Community, so there are issues that we should ensure we deal with within the European Community.

Philip Davies: We appear to be reaching an extraordinary position, in that the right hon. Gentleman seems to be advocating the free movement of people all around the EU, so that criminals can come and go as they please, but then we need these ridiculous measures to try to deal with that. Why do we not just take a more simplistic approach and scrap the free movement of people? Then perhaps we would not need all these ridiculous measures in the first place.

David Hanson: Again, I think the hon. Gentleman perhaps has more in common with other parties than his own on that issue. Some of the changes that have taken place—in technology, free movement, cybercrime, new forms of crime, child prostitution, trafficking and drugs—demand a Europe-wide solution, and I think the Home Secretary has accepted that. They are international crimes that know no borders and they need international solutions. Each crime is creating new victims. I believe it is the duty of this House to ensure that we work with our European partners to reduce that crime, bringing criminals to justice and, yes, co-operating to do so.

Bob Stewart: Can the right hon. Gentleman say, therefore, what exactly the organisation called Interpol does, which is supposed to be worldwide?

David Hanson: As the former Minister for policing and counter-terrorism in the last Government, I could spend the next 25 minutes giving the hon. Gentleman a whole lecture about what Interpol does. The key issue is that there are a range of measures. I believe that if he went back to south London this evening and asked his constituents whether they wanted effective co-operation to tackle drug abuse, child trafficking, prostitution and international terrorism, the answer would be a resounding yes. It is something the Home Secretary believes is right; it is something we believe is right.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: May I make the same point to the right hon. Gentleman that I made to the Home Secretary? The figure is only on average 125 people a year. He is making it sound as if the whole country will disappear down a crevasse if we do not have the European arrest warrant, but if 125 people are slightly more difficult to bring back, the world will still go round.

David Hanson: The hon. Gentleman is talking about a small level of crimes, but they include crimes that could destroy the centre of London and crimes that involve
	the murder or death of individuals, along with child trafficking, prostitution and drug abuse. They might be a small number in the overall gamut of crimes in the United Kingdom, but if they require international co-operation to bring people back to justice, prevent those crimes in the first place and ensure that we collect individuals and bring them back here, that is something worth considering.

Tony Baldry: My hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) is a great guy, but I do not think he has got his figures right. According to evidence submitted by the Association of Chief Police Officers to the House of Lords European Union Select Committee,
	“In 2010/11 the UK received 5,382 EAW requests and made 221 EAW requests to other EU states. The UK surrendered 1,149 individuals (approximately 7% of which were UK nationals, the other 93% being fugitives to the UK).The UK had 93 people surrendered to it.”
	Therefore, we actually surrendered a large number of people who were not UK nationals. Someone who is a criminal somewhere else is likely to be a criminal here. Does that not demonstrate that the European arrest warrant actually works perfectly well in getting rid of some very dangerous people from this country?

David Hanson: May I just say happy birthday to the right hon. Gentleman? I am an avid reader of The Guardian in the morning and his birthday appeared in that. His contribution supports my argument and that of his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, so it is a valid point, well made.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The figure given to the European Scrutiny Committee was 507 whom the UK asked for between 2009 and 2013. I am interested in when it benefits the United Kingdom, not when it benefits the continent.

David Hanson: The hon. Gentleman should reflect on what he has just said. The removal from the United Kingdom of an individual who has committed a heinous crime in this country to their own country for conviction, sentencing and incarceration benefits the United Kingdom. Equally, if an individual commits a crime abroad that requires them to be brought back to justice here—or if they commit a crime here and flee abroad, as the Home Secretary said—and they are then brought back here, that is beneficial to victims and to justice.

John Redwood: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

David Hanson: I am trying to make some progress, but of course I will give way.

John Redwood: We entirely agree that it is often in the UK’s interest to do that, and that is exactly why we would rapidly introduce a piece of legislation in this House allowing sensible arrangements to get rid of nasty people.

David Hanson: I want to focus on some key issues that, again, the Home Secretary mentioned. Which rational hon. or right hon. Member of this House would not want a prisoner transfer agreement between European
	nations? Which rational person in this House would want to have trials in absentia because of the lack of an agreement? Which rational person would not want the joint operation teams, which the Home Secretary mentioned, to bring criminals to justice? Which right hon. or hon. Member would not want supervision orders across EU borders? Which right hon. or hon. Member would not want the collection of fines across Europe, Eurojust tackling serious organised crime or, indeed, the arrest warrant to bring criminals back to justice?

Bernard Jenkin: It would be better if we conducted this debate on the basis that we were all in favour of those things. It is the means of achieving them that we are discussing. The idea that, because an hon. Member is against the European arrest warrant, he is against all those things is insulting and stupid.

David Hanson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution, but what those effective means are is a fair debate to have. I believe, as I think his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary does, that those things are best done through European co-operation. Indeed, the European arrest warrant has been of interest today, so let me quote from a statement made last year:
	“Since 2009 alone, the arrest warrant has been used to extradite from the UK 57 suspects for child sex offences, 86 for rape and 105 for murder…63 suspects for child sex offences, 27 for rape and 44 for murder were extradited back to Britain to face charges. A number of these suspects would probably have not been extradited back to Britain without the arrest warrant. We owe it to their victims, and to their loved ones, to bring these people to justice.”—[Official Report, 9 July 2013; Vol. 566, c. 178.]
	That was the Home Secretary, speaking last year. I say to the hon. Gentleman that, irrespective of his views, those individuals were brought back by that arrest warrant. The alternative suggestion, made by the right hon. Member for Wokingham, is one where we negotiate X number of individual arrest warrants—

John Redwood: One.

David Hanson: I happen to think—it is a matter of debate and it will develop during the afternoon—that this is a far better way of dealing with the problem than we have now.
	Today’s debate is one in a series. We have waited and waited; we have had debates and debates; the bus arrives, with not one, but two or three coming at once; yet the Home Secretary has not yet brought the final measures before the House. To be honest, I think that the right hon. Lady would rather be at the dentist having her teeth pulled than be here having the discussion she is having with her right hon. and hon. Friends. She has been brought to this debate by the three Select Committees, which are eventually getting the Home Secretary’s capitulation to common sense and European-wide justice and co-operation. It has, I think, hit the right hon. Lady, after looking at the matter in detail, that it is rather useful for our police to have access to criminal records or driving offences for when European lorry drivers tear up the M1 or the M6.
	The truth is that the Home Secretary’s opt-out strategy ultimately becomes an opt-in strategy. The measure of the complexity of the negotiations is indicated by the fact that she is now acting in the interests of Britain
	rather than in the interests of Conservative Back Benchers and the Eurosceptic Members here today. She has promised to garner favour with the Tory right, but she is ultimately opting into measures that we support because she now understands that the police want European co-operation and that criminals are not Eurosceptics. She understands that our ability to bring them to book and to get justice for their victims should not be compromised.
	The issue of the transfer of powers is interesting. The right hon. Lady has said what she is opting into, but she has not said what she is opting out of. These are not really significant matters. She has looked at opting out of issues such as signing joint proceedings on driving licences that are not in force and are out of date. We are not signing up to a directive on international organised crime that was closed down two years ago. We are not signing up to guidelines on working with other countries on drug trafficking, but we will carry on doing that anyway. We are not going to sign up to measures on cybercrime or mutual legal assistance because they have been superseded by other measures to which we signed up instead. We are not signing up to minimum standards on bribery because we are meeting them under our own Bribery Act 2010. We are not signing up to measures to tackle racism because we meet them under hate crime legislation that is in place. We are not signing up to measures on accession because they never applied to us in the first place, and we are not signing up to receive a directory of specialist counter-terrorism officers because someone will probably send it to us in the post instead.
	The measures that the Home Secretary is signing up to are sensible ones, whereas the ones she is not signing up to are either from the past, superseded, not relevant or not appropriate for us. The right hon. Lady has posed as the great Eurosceptic champion of the Conservative Government when what she has done is to sign up to things that I would sign up to, which many of her hon. Friends would not sign up to. The things that she has not signed up to are things that are, as I say, not relevant, not appropriate and not needed now.

Julian Smith: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree with me that the Home Secretary and the Home Office have spent hours, days and months working to ensure that the many concerns people had about the European arrest warrant have now been addressed in UK law?

David Hanson: They have indeed spent many hours, days and months, and I have spent many hours, days and months in Committee dealing with those matters, too. We did not oppose what the Home Secretary brought forward; we supported it. There was no difference between us and the Home Secretary on those matters. It could have made a difference—and, dare I say it, it could make a difference now—if the Home Secretary had brought forward several months ago the measures she has just brought forward now. She could have had an in-principle discussion—

Chris Grayling: We did.

David Hanson: The Justice Secretary says that they did, but he needs to reflect more on the record. The Home Secretary has tried to indicate that some of these matters
	might be up for discussion, but ultimately, as she knows, they are in the interests of crime fighting, the interests of victim prevention and the interests of ensuring that we bring criminals to justice.

Michael Connarty: I think that my right hon. Friend is being kind to the Opposition and, probably correctly, to the Home Secretary, who has worked hard on this issue. The Justice Secretary, however, defended the position previously. They will accept minimum standards on organised crime, but they will not accept minimum standards on terrorism. It is totally illogical. The Justice Secretary has forgotten about that. I raised the issue on the Floor of the House previously and the right hon. Gentleman could not reply then and he cannot reply now.

David Hanson: My hon. Friend raises important issues, but my chief point to the Home Secretary is that she could have indicated her commitment to opting in to these issues more strongly and earlier, which would have put her in a much better place in the negotiations. [Interruption.] The right hon. Lady says she did, but I do not think she did. We will have to disagree and reflect on the issues again. The Home Secretary has tried to be Eurosceptic and to compromise with her Eurosceptic Back Benchers, but they will never compromise on these issues. She needs to take a firm stance to ensure that the House has a vote and agrees these measures because they are good for crime prevention, good for victims and good for bringing people to justice. She needs to bring the vote forward as quickly as possible so that we can shake off the Eurosceptics and show that we in Britain are committed to working with our European partners to crack down on crime and ensure that both Britain and Europe become safer places.

William Cash: This issue is not at all about shaking off Eurosceptics; it is about deciding what is sensible for the United Kingdom in line with our values, our traditions and our own rule of law. As many right hon. and hon. Members have indicated, there is no reason for these provisions that could not have been achieved by other means. Furthermore, I have still not had an answer to the question: what is so special about the European Union and the cross-border arrangements that operate within it, compared with anywhere else in the world, where we will find murderers, traffickers and all the other problems that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary mentioned? They problems are found in the rest of the world and in Europe, yet we have these special arrangements for Europe alone. The answer is simple: it is about sovereignty.
	This is all about giving in to the European Union, through the European Communities Act 1972. Watching both Front-Bench teams is rather like watching an attempt to get out of a paper bag—except for the fact that this paper bag is a steel mesh. The steel mesh is the European Court of Justice and sections 2 and 3 of the European Communities Act. I respect what the Home Secretary is trying to do because she is stuck and trapped in arrangements that are being dictated by the very people—Mr Juncker, for example, who came forward
	with these proposals from the European Commission, and Viviane Reding, another European Commissioner of the first order—who are committed to driving forward these arrangements in the belief that if they could manage to secure a EU-wide criminal justice system, they could make further progress towards the European political union that they want. That is really what it is all about. It is simply naïve and disingenuous to put it any other way.

John Redwood: Does my hon. Friend remember that when we had Conservative Governments, we always understood that, and it was a fundamental principle that home affairs and foreign affairs had to be kept outside the treaties and outside the purview of the European Court of Justice through the three pillar structure?

William Cash: That is absolutely right. I have followed these matters with what could be described as a mild degree of interest since the Maastricht treaty, in which we were promised all these pillars, but they have all now collapsed as though Samson had stretched out and pulled them down, bringing the whole of the criminal justice arrangements we had previously enjoyed crashing down with him.
	Despite all the promises that were made, during the Lisbon treaty debates my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench and I, who were then in opposition, voted against every single measure. We were completely united as a party, not just as Eurosceptics but as sensible people—rational people, if I may say so to the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson). The bottom line is that we have now completely reversed our position and are in the process of accepting 35 measures that we would not have contemplated when the Lisbon treaty was going through.
	Many of the issues that have already been raised and will be raised later during the debate are of deep concern not only to many Conservative Members but, I would say, to many people throughout the country, as the votes in the European elections indicated. I think that this is just another example of our giving in to European measures when there is no real, rational reason for doing so, given that there are criminals—murderers, traffickers and so forth—throughout the rest of the world.
	From 1 December 2014—the right hon. Member for Delyn mentioned this, but I want to reaffirm it from this side of the House—the Court of Justice will exercise full jurisdiction over all EU police and criminal justice measures. As a result, the Commission will be able to infract member states—bring them before the Court, because we have allowed it to do so—and request a fine if they fail to implement the measures correctly. National courts will be able to seek preliminary rulings from the Court on their interpretation or validity. That is a matter of grave concern to the United Kingdom. The European Scrutiny, Home Affairs and Justice Committees —the Chairmen of all three are present—were concerned about the 2014 block opt-out decision, and every one of us, including all the members of my Committee, was critical of the Government’s reluctance to engage fully with Parliament. All the Committees’ reports are tagged to this debate.
	The history of the issue has not been by any means a happy one. In their response to the reports, the Government stated:
	“ For the avoidance of doubt, we reaffirm our commitment to hold a second vote in both Houses of Parliament before making a formal application to rejoin any measures. We continue to believe that in order for this vote to be as informed as possible, it should be held after we have reached an ‘in principle’ agreement on those measures we will seek to rejoin.”
	The problem is that this debate—a general debate—is not meeting what we understood would be the case. I remain somewhat surprised that we are engaging in this debate when the timing of and procedure for the real debate have not yet been spelt out. I hope that, when he winds up today’s debate, the Justice Secretary will give us a clear, factual indication of when that vote and that debate will take place, because that is what the Government have committed themselves to doing.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: My hon. Friend makes a crucial point. We understood from the Home Secretary that there would be a vote, but we have been given no assurance that there will be a debate prior to that vote. Will my hon. Friend be seeking clarification on that?

William Cash: That is exactly what I have said, and that is exactly what we need to have an answer to. What we do not want is a short debate followed by a vote. We want a comprehensive debate on the Floor of the House of Commons—no ifs and no buts. I am sure that the Justice Secretary will be able to give us that assurance.
	A letter written to me by the Home and Justice Secretaries dated 3 July confirmed that an agreement “in principle” had been reached with the Commission on the non-Schengen measures, but not on the overall package. According to the Home Secretary, a number of “technical reservations” remained in regard to the Schengen measures, and the General Affairs Council maintained that position the other day. We must have a further, full debate on the Floor of the House, and a vote, once full agreement has been reached.
	I want to put a number of questions to the Government. I should be grateful—as, I think, would the rest of the House—if the Justice Secretary responded to them when he winds up the debate.
	We need the Government to explain the reasons for the changes to the 35 measures, and to identify which changes demanded by the Commission and the other member states they were able to resist. We want them to clarify whether these are the measures that the Government themselves wish to seek to rejoin, or whether they are measures that they are compelled to rejoin in order to secure a coherent package that is acceptable to the Commission and the other member states. In a nutshell, was this a deal made behind closed doors and conducted to a great extent, if not entirely, by officials, and to what extent does it reflect coalition politics?
	We note that the 35 measures present only part of the picture. We ask the Government to complete the picture by making available to Parliament a list of all the pre-Lisbon measures that were subject to the United Kingdom’s block opt-out as of 1 December 2009, but no longer are because the UK has opted into amending or “repeal and replace” measures.
	We should like the Government to explain why the
	“solution concerning the Prüm Decisions and the Probation Framework Decision”
	which was alluded to in the Council press release issued after the General Affairs Council on 24 June, is not mentioned or explained in Command Paper 8897, in the Minister for Europe’s written ministerial statement of 30 June informing Parliament of the outcome of the Council, or in the letter of 3 July from the Home and Justice Secretaries to me, as Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee. We note that details of the “solution” have emerged through press releases and reports and not through the provision of information to Parliament, and we want to know whether the Government regard that as an appropriate way for them to engage with Parliament.
	We seek further information on the content of the deal that has been made, including any processes for consulting Parliament. We want to know how much the UK has invested so far in its preparations for implementing the Prüm decisions, and we ask the Minister and the Secretary of State to set out the Government’s current assessment of the utility of the Prüm and probation framework decisions.
	We want to know about the reliability of some of the assumptions underlying the Government’s impact assessments, especially in regard to measures such as the prisoner transfer framework decision, when the capacity to operate the measures may be in doubt in some member states, or when the risk of legal challenge on human rights grounds—based, for example, on article 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights if prison conditions are regarded as inhuman or degrading, or on article 8 if there is interference with the right to respect for family life—could be regarded as significant.
	We note that the possibility of adverse rulings by the Court of Justice does not feature among the “key assumptions/sensitivities/risks” in the impact assessments, although concerns about the extension of the Court’s jurisdiction to EU police and criminal justice measures are at the heart of the block opt-out.
	We note that the Government claim to have taken into account the views expressed in our report, as well as those of other Committees. We want to know whether they accept the assessment of our Committee that the selection of measures to rejoin
	“does not signify any lessening of UK involvement in the key measures governing law enforcement cooperation in the EU” ,
	our assessment that many of the measures, because of their inherent significance and impact on individuals, are likely to be more susceptible to adverse judgments of the Court of Justice than the numerically larger number of measures that the Government do not propose to rejoin, and our assessment that there is
	“little evidence of a genuine and significant repatriation of powers”.
	So we are asking a significant number of questions, and I am putting them on the record now, because we are going to have another debate at a later time. We want to know the significance of the answers to these questions and weigh them up in the light of the general principles I put forward at the beginning, and we need to know about the timing of this debate. We want to know not only when it will take place, but what measures it will cover, as well as receive assurances about the motions that will be tabled. I ask the two Secretaries of State to listen to this very carefully—they are having
	quite an interesting conversation with one of the Whips at the moment. Would they be good enough to listen carefully? We want to know that the motions will be tabled with sufficient notice to enable Members to prepare amendments, and we reiterate the position on the form of the vote set out in our Committee report: there should be separate motions for each of the measures the Government propose to rejoin.
	That is an important practical question about that debate, and I believe it is incumbent on the Government to answers the questions this afternoon so we have a clear picture of the way forward and so we know that this debate will not be just a waste of time, given that we have got another debate and another vote to come when all these measures are going to be finally decided. They are critical measures of great importance not only in terms of criminal justice matters, but also in respect of the whole question of the sovereignty of the United Kingdom and its rule of law.

Keith Vaz: It is a pleasure to follow the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), and as I have not done so previously, may I congratulate him on the knighthood that has been bestowed on him, which was very well deserved, and may I also say how pleased I am to see the right hon. Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) here today, because I understand it is his birthday? What a glorious way to celebrate a birthday, talking about the European arrest warrant and the prisoner transfer agreements!
	I welcome this debate. As the House has heard from the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), the Chairs of the three Select Committees wrote to the Justice Secretary and the Home Secretary asking for an early opportunity to debate these issues, and our letter was received very courteously and we now have a debate as a result of our representations. In the view of the Home Affairs Committee it would have been much better if this debate had taken place before the negotiations began. That was one of the recommendations we made after we took evidence from the Home Secretary and others about these important measures, because we felt strongly that if Parliament had made its views clear before the Home Secretary and Justice Secretary started their negotiations, that mandate would have bolstered them in their negotiations with their European partners. Unfortunately, such a debate did not take place before the negotiations began.
	I agree with the Chairman of the ESC that there ought to be a vote on this issue. I am glad the Government have said they will have a vote. I would be surprised if there was not a debate before the vote. Even though we are probably only going to have the usual suspects here, I think it should be a long debate, rather than an hour-and-a-half debate, because these are very important measures. What we have asked for—I will come on to this later when we look at the European arrest warrant—is a separate vote specifically on the European arrest warrant. The Committee produced a unanimous report, and those who serve on the Home Affairs Committee have different views on the European Union, so getting a unanimous decision on something of this kind is quite
	difficult. The Committee unanimously decided, however, that we should be asking for this because of the representations we had received from so many people, including hon. and right hon. Members, about the way in which the European arrest warrant operated.
	We have heard what the Home Secretary has done, and I welcome all the steps she has taken, and also the views of the Opposition Front Bench in Committee when it looked at the way in which the arrest warrant was operating. We heard specific evidence in the Committee from, among others, the hon. Members for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) and for South Dorset (Richard Drax) about individual constituency cases where the European arrest warrant had gone wrong. I and the Committee accept the principle of the European arrest warrant. We believe this was an important measure to enable countries that are members of the European Union—and, indeed, beyond, through bilateral agreements —to bring back into the country and offer up those who are wanted in respect of criminal matters. So the principle is fine. However, our concern was the practice, and the examples we received caused us enormous concern.
	There was the Andrew Symeou case, which was told to us by the hon. Member for Enfield North, and the case of Michael Turner—a gentleman who was extradited to Hungary and incarcerated there and who never faced any charges and who is a constituent of South Dorset—and other examples that caused Members to say that the European arrest warrant was good in principle but not necessarily good in practice and had caused their constituents a great deal of concern.
	As we have heard, the number of requests to our country far exceed the number of requests that we make. The total cost of executing an incoming European arrest warrant in the United Kingdom is approximately £20,000. The 999 received by the United Kingdom in 2011 are estimated to have cost around £20 million. So this is not justice on the cheap. It costs a great deal of money to execute these warrants.
	Our concern was the way in which they were being requested by certain European countries, and I have mentioned Poland but there were other examples. Indeed, if we look at the requests made of Germany and other countries where people are wanted, we see the figures are just as high. The Home Secretary has great negotiating skills, charm and powers of persuasion, which I saw for myself at the Police Federation conference earlier this year, so she is no pushover, and I am sure she went in there and negotiated strongly on behalf of our country, as Ministers have to do, especially knowing the views of Parliament. The fact is, however, she does not have control, and neither does the Justice Secretary with all his great skills and ability, of the Polish judiciary. They do not have control of the Latvian system of justice. They do not have control of the way in which these warrants are issued in the first place. They do have control over the execution, but not over the issuing.

Chris Heaton-Harris: There are some other issues around the European arrest warrant and trying to reform it. While we might want to have reforms that make it function better, is it not the case that the European Commission, in co-decision with the European Parliament, has to have the final say on these matters? So we might want to have this reform, but it
	might never come forward, and that is a fundamental problem about the opt-in, because we give these powers away completely once and for all.

Keith Vaz: I defer to the knowledge of the hon. Gentleman with all his vast experience of European affairs. Having served as an MEP for so long in the east midlands, he sought asylum here in the House of Commons and he has rightly raised one of the big issues. We can negotiate, but at the end of the day it is an issue that we need to confront. How are we going to persuade the European Commission on these very important matters?
	We have heard about the wheelbarrow case—the man accused of stealing a wheelbarrow who was the subject of a European arrest warrant—and those absconding from prisons on day release or those accused of minor drugs offences. There was a man who gave false details on a £200 bank loan that had already been paid off. A warrant was issued, it had to be executed and that cost £20,000. So the Home Secretary is right to give us the headline examples—as the shadow Immigration Minister also did—of people who commit terrible crimes in other parts of Europe and who we feel obliged to give back as quickly as possible, but many, many examples go the other way and that shows there are still problems with the warrant. The Home Secretary has made big efforts to make these matters more effective by introducing the forum bar and giving more powers to the judges to look at such cases, but that is not enough when European partners are not prepared to reform their judicial systems, where so many warrants are being issued.
	The Home Secretary is often reluctant to tell me about her travel plans after she has been to some of these countries but I am sure that, like me, she has been to Poland. I went there with members of the Committee and we talked to prosecutors there. The first question they asked was, “Are you coming to talk about the European arrest warrant?” We said, “Yes we are, because we are really concerned. Why are the Polish judges issuing so many warrants when, in our view, they are not merited?” These warrants undermine the principle of the EAW when they are issued for such trivial reasons as the theft of a wheelbarrow. Obviously, it is extremely important for the person who has lost the wheelbarrow, but in the whole history of the world, to coin a phrase of the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), it is not that important—it is certainly not worth £20,000. So more work needs to be done.
	Even when that work is done, the Committee is very clear that we must have a separate vote on the EAW. We are happy to have the package as a whole put before the House. I am not sure how many of these 35 measures can go through the House within a parliamentary day, but we draw a line in the sand about the EAW: Parliament is concerned about it and we therefore need a vote.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: We could debate all 35, with a full day’s debate for each one—we are not exactly overwhelmed with business.

Keith Vaz: That is a good point, but luckily, I do not have control of the parliamentary day. These are representations we need to make, and we will see what the will of Parliament is. Let us recall some earlier ministerial words:
	“I hope that today I have conveyed to the House not only the Government’s full commitment to holding a vote on the 2014 decision in this House and the other place, but the importance that we will accord to Parliament in the process leading up to that vote.”—[Official Report, 15 October 2012; Vol. 551, c. 35.]
	It could be that Members want a vote on each of the 35 measures, but the Committee definitely wants a vote on the EAW, because we think it stands out in the business that the Home Secretary and Justice Secretary are currently discussing in the EU.
	I welcome what is being proposed on Europol, and the Committee is a great fan of Rob Wainwright, the British head of Europol, who is doing a terrific job. Anyone who has visited Europol will see the work being done there, which is impressive and effective, and helps in the fight against organised crime. Europol works well with Interpol, although I know comments were made about Interpol. I and others have visited Interpol, which provides a huge benefit to cross-border action against serious and organised crime, illegal migration, people trafficking and all the other issues about which the House is very concerned. At the moment, there are 3,600 internationally active organised crime gangs operating across Europe. We cannot deal with those on our own, especially as far as cyber-crime is concerned; we have to deal with them through Europol. The Home Secretary is right to opt back in to those proceedings. I am not sure about one or two of the other Europol decisions, but if we are going to have further discussions, we will raise those at that stage.

William Cash: In this context, does the right hon. Gentleman regard Albania’s candidacy for the European Union with equanimity? [Interruption.]

Keith Vaz: I apologise, but I could not hear the hon. Gentleman because the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Sir Richard Shepherd) was muttering so I was looking at him. I wonder whether the hon. Member for Stone would repeat that.

William Cash: I just wanted to know whether, in the context of the issues of justice and home affairs and all the matters we are discussing today, the right hon. Gentleman regards with equanimity the proposed candidacy for EU membership of Albania, given its very serious crime, trafficking and all the rest of it.

Keith Vaz: Anyone can apply to join the club; we do not mind people wanting to apply to join. The problem is that there are serious issues for all applicant countries to address, and Albania has to recognise that there is a big problem with organised gangs operating from there. A huge amount of work still needs to be done before Albania becomes a full member of the EU, and the hon. Gentleman is right to focus on that. Let me touch on what we must do with applicant countries—here is a mea culpa, if I am allowed to make one on behalf of the previous Government. Those of us who were enthusiastic about enlargement of the EU—I still am—should have realised that once a country has joined we tend to allow it just to continue on its own, without providing the support—not financial support, but all the other support—needed to make it a full member of the EU. That is why we need to work with countries throughout this period. We always invite countries to join, but when they are in
	we leave them on their own, and that is a mistake. There is a lot of work to do on Albania, and I am sure the Albanians understand that and are going to have a lot of help along the way.
	I am glad that we are opting in to the European criminal records information system, because it allows the courts to make the right decision on those who appear before them. We need to know when dangerous criminals are coming into our country, which is why it is good that we are opting in to that measure. I am sure the Justice Secretary welcomes the prisoner transfer agreement, because he has worked hard to get it going. Two of the top three countries in respect of the 10,695 foreign prisoners we have in our prisons, who are costing us £300 million, are EU countries—Poland and Ireland. Anything that helps us work with European colleagues to make sure that people go back to their country to serve their sentences is to be welcomed.
	I welcome the progress that is being made. We must have another debate in Parliament. The process of scrutiny must continue, but at the end of the day there has to be a vote on these measures, as the Government have promised, and specifically on the EAW. That is the strong feeling of every member of the Home Affairs Committee, and I hope I have conveyed that to the House today.

Alan Beith: First, Madam Deputy Speaker, may I apologise for missing the start of the Home Secretary’s speech because of a meeting with a Minister which had been arranged before today’s timings were affected by the earlier statement? I am very glad to follow my colleague the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz). We have worked together, along with the Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee, to try to improve the way Parliament is able to address these matters. It has been a struggle, and the outcome in terms of the process is still far from satisfactory, but we have reached this point and we are having this debate. There will be a debate and a vote or votes at a later stage—we are still unclear as to what that procedure will be. This has at times been like getting blood out of a stone, and I do not think that is particularly in the Government’s interests. I appreciate some of the problems that they face, but in order to obtain parliamentary support they need to give Parliament the opportunities to feel confident that it has been able to examine things properly. I am therefore glad that we now have the Command Paper, which includes all the impact assessments. It would have been very helpful to have had those much earlier, and of course we still do not have the impact assessments on those measures the Government do not propose to enter—perhaps those would have helped to illuminate the Government’s reasons for the decisions they made.
	There are no changes in the opt-ins in the Ministry of Justice field; the changes are in the much larger number of measures that come within the Home Office’s sphere. The Justice Committee has therefore already examined and reached conclusions on the measures, and it is unlikely to do a great deal more on the issue between
	now and the later stages of consideration. We published a report, and the Government are still pursuing a view with which we broadly agree, and I will explain why.
	The measures include six mutual recognition measures, including one on financial penalties that originated with the United Kingdom and Sweden. There are measures on previous convictions, prisoner transfers, judgments in absentia and European supervision orders. The Government propose to rejoin all those measures with one exception, which is the probation measures framework decision, to which I will return. The Committee agrees that the Government were right, in the national interest and in the interest of effective cross-border co-operation, to seek to rejoin five of the measures.
	The Committee of course strongly supports the UK’s participation in the prisoner transfer framework decision because it is a priority to reduce the number of foreign nationals held in UK prisons. That decision is also an important part of the overall package for reforming the European arrest warrant. The Committee is particularly conscious of the problems presented by the large number of foreign nationals in UK prisons. Those are nationals from many countries in UK prisons, and the Government must continue their efforts in relation to those countries. With European countries, however, there is a much better prospect of achieving a prisoner’s return to their native country because we are not dealing with countries in which human rights considerations, on the face of it, would appear to prevent a return.
	One of the five measures, the European supervision order, enables a defendant or suspect on non-custodial pre-trial bail or other supervision to return to their home member state to await trial there under supervision, and we support and welcome that measure. The probation measures framework decision provides the basis for mutual recognition and supervision of suspended sentences, post-custodial licences and community sentences, and the Committee noted the Government’s concerns about the measure’s operation:
	“In view of the potential value of the Framework Decision we consider that the Government should pursue the matter in their negotiations on the opt-in list to see whether these concerns can be dealt with. We would not wish to rule out participation in the measure if concerns about its drafting can be overcome”.
	We discovered from another source that a solution to that problem is alleged to have been found. The source was a press release issued by the General Affairs Council on 24 June, from which it appears that the Government have undertaken to consider opting back in to two Prüm decisions and the probation measures framework decision at a later stage.
	In evidence to our Committee on 9 July, the Lord Chancellor admitted that he had been pressed by the Commission to rejoin the probation measures framework decision, arguing that it was closely linked to the prisoner transfer agreement. He repeated the objections that he had previously expressed to the Committee, particularly that we do not have much experience of the measure’s operation in other countries and the legal problems that it might cause. He said that the solution reached in the negotiations was that the UK would look at the matter again in the next Parliament to see whether rejoining would be in the national interest. It would have been preferable if the Government had volunteered information on that, either in correspondence or in a Command
	Paper, instead of leaving it to Committees to glean information from Council press releases and media reports.
	More generally, the Justice Committee supports the Government’s choice of measures to rejoin in the national interest and in the interest of fighting crime. We reached some agreement with the Government on minimum standards measures that set standards already met by the United Kingdom. We said that
	“the arguments for opting into the…minimum standards measures are primarily symbolic, and our view is that those arguments do not outweigh the disadvantages of bringing wide areas of criminal justice in the UK unnecessarily into the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union.”
	Many traditions in our judicial systems in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland are different from those that prevail in continental practice, and it therefore makes sense not to become involved in matters in the European Court of Justice when doing so does not serve the national interest. There is value in signing up to minimum standards measures if it has a persuasive effect in other countries, but the Committee’s view is that that is outweighed by the disadvantages of creating case law in the European Court of Justice on matters that do not need to be treated in that way.
	The changes to the list of 35 measures do not appear to affect the overall balance of the package. Some of the changes are the consequence of measures ceasing to be subject to the block opt-out, and others, such as the additional measures on Europol and the Schengen information system, are ancillary to the Government’s decision to participate in Europol and the Schengen information system and may be regarded as necessary on the grounds of coherence and practical operability. It is interesting that the Government have achieved the conjuring trick of changing the list of measures while retaining the same total number. I suspect that has something to do with internal party management within the Conservative party, but the outcome for the balance of the measures will continue to be supported by the Committee. The measures that the Government have agreed to opt into will materially assist in the fight against serious crime and in the safeguarding of the freedom of our citizens. The Government have my support.

Michael Connarty: As could be imagined, tailgating the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) on these issues in the European Scrutiny Committee on behalf of the Labour party is a tortuous but enlightening process. It is interesting to note that the original Command Paper 8671, which was published in July 2013 and which we discussed on the Floor of the House, has been slightly amended. Most people probably do not realise that what we are discussing now is a similar, but not identical, list of 35 measures set out in Command Paper 8897 on 3 July 2014, so there have been some small amendments along the way.
	I recommend that interested people outside the House not only listen to the debates, which are enlightening but repetitive, but read the relevant documents from the European Scrutiny Committee, the Justice Committee and the Home Affairs Committee. Those documents give a flavour of the minutiae about which the European Scrutiny Committee in general differs from the Government.
	Although I have my concerns about the European Union, and particularly about the behaviour of the Commission, I am not a conspiracy theorist. I do not support the hon. Gentleman’s often-repeated analysis that it has been set out in a dark room somewhere in the European Commission that this will all eventually lead to a united states of Europe controlled by a bureaucracy in Brussels that is helped by the European Court of Justice and many other manipulative organs of the European Union.
	The fact is that the European Commission, at its heart, tends to have a competence creep mentality. In many areas the Commission is making everyone do things according to its will when those things do not require such direction. I am a great supporter of devolution in Scotland and other parts of the UK, and I am a great supporter of subsidiarity, but not the subsidiarity set out in the Lisbon treaty. It is a falsehood to say that the Lisbon treaty has given more power to Parliaments.
	In that sense, I wonder about the Government’s approach to the opt-outs that we are debating. We know there is a block opt-out on all 133 measures, most of which, as has been articulately stated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), have been superseded or are redundant. On a few issues, we might want to argue about the final details of whether we should have opted in to certain justice standards, but at the heart of the debate is a feeling that the Government have not been willing to be open enough about that fact, which was a point raised by the Chair of the Justice Committee, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith). The reality is that there have been no massively significant changes to the competences that have been drawn back to the UK, because most of the 133 measures have been superseded, are redundant or have never been used. Therefore, the myth being created, which is that this process is about repatriating powers to the UK—one that has been put forward by the Government—is such an obvious falsehood that the public are becoming more and more disillusioned and sceptical about the Government’s position.
	I think that the majority of the coalition Government are pro-EU and want to see us solidly at the heart of the EU and influencing it. I think that they are deeply committed, as I think we on the Opposition side are, to reforming the EU, making it more relevant and finding a way to draw back to the member states the powers that they wish to apply in their own right. But that is not what people are seeing in this debate.
	For example, the Justice Committee reached the conclusion—on page 6 of its eighth report of the 2013-14 Session—that in the previous debate the House was not being asked at that stage to endorse the list of 35 measures that the Government intended to opt back into, but the Home Secretary used the debate again and again to claim that the Government had the support of the House of Commons for what they were doing. She gave the impression again and again, in writing and in the spoken word, that that is what we did. We started a process and considered a Command Paper, but we did not conclude that it was correct or endorse it; the public were given the impression that somehow we had.
	The position taken by the Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee is supported by its members—certainly the 13 who were there, including myself. We think that the House should debate and vote on each of the 35 measures—I saw you flinch, Madam Deputy Speaker,
	when that was suggested. They might be all in the same order and, as the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee pointed out, there are key issues, so it might be possible to group them in such a way that Members can express their opinions by voting on groups.
	However, I certainly agree that we should have some kind of debate—it is a pity that it is being done in this context—about the European arrest warrant, because I think that it is the right kind of measure. We would not want to replace it with a country-by-country arrangement based on applications to bring people back individually. I will give an example. I hope that my friend—and I do regard him as a friend—the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) is listening. After the 7 July bombings, the fact that we could return one of the bombers to this country within three weeks was a massive example of why such an arrangement is fundamentally sound. However, it might have to be modified in some ways to stop the nonsense of having applications for cases of wheelbarrow theft or £200 loans with the wrong details and all sorts of trivia.
	I want to expand on a case from my constituency. It concerns a family with a custody order over a child. The father, who is Polish, abducted the child and took it to Poland, so the grandfather and a friend went to Poland, took the child and brought it back to Scotland. The father then claimed that he had been assaulted during that process. A European arrest warrant was sought and the case was taken to a Scottish court, but it ruled that the warrant was not valid because the witness was clear that no assault had taken place and that what they had done was to apply the court’s ruling that the mother, who is Scottish, had the right to custody of the child and that the father had abducted the child. That seemed to be the end of the matter, and it sounded sensible to me. However, something went wrong with the process. Only last year the grandfather, who is now not in good health, and his wife decided to take a holiday in the Netherlands. When he stepped off the plane in Amsterdam, he was arrested and sent to Poland. He had a heart attack there and ended up in hospital. When the court in Poland eventually looked at the case, it concluded that there was no case to answer and that the European arrest warrant was not valid, so he was released. Now his health is even worse.
	Why is there no process—I have asked the Home Secretary this—whereby all the agencies that sign up to the European arrest warrant can be informed when a court rules against an attempt to use it in the country in which it is attempted to be served? Why is there no transmission of that information? The grandfather could have gone on holiday anyway in the EU and he would probably have been arrested and sent to Poland, and for a European arrest warrant that a court had already ruled was invalid. It makes no sense to me that these things still stand. Apart from the trivia, it is the mechanism of how they are applied that worries me.
	The basic fact of this debate is that the European Scrutiny Committee, the Home Affairs Committee and the Justice Committee felt that the Government were not giving enough information and that they were not willing to accept that it is not enough to bring back one blockbuster motion stating, “We’ve had a negotiation and signed up to 35 items. Take it or leave it.” It cannot
	be done like that. If it is done like that, it will undermine the Government’s credibility. The Opposition would then be in a difficult situation, because we would have to either support the motion, if it was all that was available, table a counter-motion of some kind in order to divide up the 35 items, or use some other process in order to respond to what the British public, Parliament and the three Committees want, which is a debate on the fundamental issues in the package so that we can vote on them individually and say, as I hope we will, “Yes, we are behind this move to sign up to the 35 items.”
	Some of us might like to see some other things opted into, with a little bit of finessing by the Government so that we keep progressing along the path that I think we are on with justice and home affairs. My worry is not about justice and home affairs and a corpus juris for Europe; my worry is with the economics of the European Union that are destroying the economies of the subservient countries that have come into it and are under the fiscal compact and the eurozone’s stability and growth pact. That, to me, is what is damaging the project for Europe, not justice and home affairs. I am not worried about the fact—this was put to me in a private conversation with another hon. Member—that the Queen has to register and prove that she is a real British citizen so that her bank account can be used across Europe. What worries me is that we are damaging other people in Europe for the power of the economic giants, including us—we are a much-diminished giant, but we are still benefiting from it. I want the debate to take place in such a way that people can say afterwards that there is a united feeling in this House that the European Union is a good thing.
	I will also put down a marker for those on my Front Bench. I want to see us sign up to a referendum on the European Union and to go out with like-minded people across the House and win a yes vote to remain in the European Union and build Europe for the benefit of British citizens.

Richard Shepherd: I have been in this House for seven Parliaments. Each has seemed to have a different character, but there has been one consistent thread across all that time: the integration within European processes. That has had support on high days, on holidays and in opposition. I see it as a fundamental task of the House of Commons to challenge perceived wisdoms and reflect the responsibilities and interests of those we are elected to represent.
	I have also seen the continuing theme of membership of the European Union over all that time. It has never quite been a settled issue. For all the trumpets and bands, all the songs and the universal praise, there is a deep underlying tug. It is really about a sense of country. Who are we? It has always been about that. That, after all, is the first duty of a sovereign state, I would argue: to protect the interests, freedoms and liberties that we have enjoyed under our form of constitutional arrangements. What we are really seeing is a struggle over the British constitution. Oh, but does it not evolve over time? Yet, looking back, there has been one constant theme, which is that people profoundly believed in many of the central precepts of what constitutes a sovereign state. I am driven in my memory by certain
	observations, too. The German constitutional court made the observation that democracy lies not in the institutions of the community, the European Union, but in the national state, and yet everything that this House seems to do in recent years is to surrender and denigrate that nation state—the very concept by which we have authority in this House.
	What is the criticism of the European arrest warrant? It is that it is promoted on the basis of a benefit, but to many people it is actually a degradation of the security of the British people. The fact that they can be taken away from within this jurisdiction by almost a mandate, which will, in time, be governed by the European Court of Justice is a loss of the authority of our own legal and justice system.
	The House is well aware that, in recent months, a series of High Court and Supreme Court judges have been writing essays, making a plea about the way in which the discretion and the interpretation of human rights is conducted. The most central purpose of a Government is law and order and the effectiveness with which they protect the citizen, and no one can dispute that our Home Secretary is fierce in her determination to protect the British citizen. But, actually, the greatest protection of a citizen and a coherent society, which is what we call the sovereign state, lies within the commitment of the people to their institutions and their way of self-government, and that is what this measure undermines.

Michael Connarty: I am concerned about the nationalist tone of the hon. Gentleman’s contribution. Under his logic, Scotland should vote yes to independence in September, and I am totally opposed to breaking up the United Kingdom, which I happen to think respects Scottish subsidiarity.

Richard Shepherd: I will not trade remarks on this matter. I was also born in Scotland, and I am deprived of a vote on something that affects my cousins and my relatives. This has been a Union for 300 years, and we have been united by the sentiments of those people. Not so very long ago—70 years—the Scots, the English, the Welsh and those from Northern Ireland stood together against the greatest danger of our time: the monolithic power of Germany. I see this not as nationalistic but as a reflection and a pride in who we are, what we are, what this nation has accomplished and our ability to govern ourselves. The Scots will make their own decision; I am not involved in that because I do not have a residence in Scotland. Anyone passing through who might temporarily have a residence there can have a vote. No, no that is not democratic, and it is not the spirit of the Union. The Union has fought together, worked together and made something together, and that is the Union I am concerned about, not the European Union. When we come to deal with these matters, we will find that we have surrendered our very sense of “these are our people.”
	As a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, we looked at these extradition orders. The Home Affairs Committee and the Justice Committee have looked at these matters, too. No one has made any mention of this, but one of the best things in the process were the groups that have spoken and given testimony to those Committees. The Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee talked about those who are genuinely concerned about the way in which all of this has happened.
	I half expected to hear mention of the Staffordshire case in Genoa in which a man, under these extradition endeavours, was found guilty of murder, although he had never been there or even near there. No, the integrity of a nation is founded on its institutions and also the law. In this country, I maintain that we have a pretty high degree of acceptance of the process of law and judgment and the way in which it is made. What we are now confronted with is the triviality of a central bureaucracy that sets out to be a great state, which I know the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) for honourable reasons passionately believes in, but who in the end will protect us? That can only be the people of our own country and our own institutions.
	I find no comfort in this succession of cases, which have been listed by the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, and which the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk also knows well enough about. We have all had constituents who have expressed a concern that the British Government—Parliament—seem to have no effectiveness in the world. I do not blame anyone for that. It is a crisis in our nation that we have to question who really governs us. I maintain that it is us who should govern us, and by that I mean our own Union.
	I was deeply distressed when I heard the words of the Home Secretary, who fiercely defends us, in impossible cases, against treaty after treaty into which British Governments have entered. I even consider the United States treaty on extradition to be grotesquely misjudged. Of course the wonderful thing is that there will always be a judge who will find good merit in whatever the British Government are proposing. I will take issue, because my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who is undoubtedly a doughty, valiant and fierce fighter, has achieved very little in the face of these international organisations that we have so joyously, easily and with great hallelujahs joined, and yet those organisations all sting us, because in the end they have taken away from the very sovereignty of our people. When we talk about the sovereignty of Parliament, we mean the people, and ultimately all of our fates are decided by them. In our grotesque shifting away from the authority of the people, we lose them, and that is why there is such a great disconnect.
	I am glad to see that my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) is in his place. He has catalogued many of these cases and understands their interconnectivity with what has happened. This is a bound Parliament now. It is bound not by the people but by our own passing views of the great affairs of the world. I fear that we have lost our nerve in some way. I watched a celebration of the end of war in Europe 70 years ago, and I saw elderly people, who had lost friends and colleagues, showing such pride that even alone Britain could stand for something; and we do stand for something. It does not need the buying of votes or the passing over of great sums of money. I listened with alarm that Albania will be “brought up”. This is a union that has been founded on the transfer of payments. Now, I believe, and my dad taught me, that we earn our own living. That is the truth that this country seems to be waving away. We pass over money in vast sums. I wonder why we are giving £9 billion net a year to fund European integration. We watched Ireland—I feel tremendously for Ireland—which had a near transfer of 5% of GDP to support the move to the future. It did
	that on its own, and the way it has come through the crisis has been an amazing feat of self-discipline and obedience to European precepts.
	So we come to the substance of the debate. We are giving over to others the ultimate rule on the protection of our own citizens. This will come under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, which most people would agree is an integrationist court, governed by the central proposition of ever-closer union. I think of the glory of Europe historically—the nation states of Europe, the cultures, the universities, the interconnectivity, but not the throttling blanket that the European Union now represents to many of us.
	Many people knock us and say, “But wasn’t there something we could have done?” We had a constitution that never doubted who was in charge—the people. We have transferred that role to international friction-making devices such as the European Union. We should be seen by our people as defending the interests of the people. I have always been cautious about a declaration from the Front Bench—any Front Bench—that says, “We act in the national interest.” The national interest is what this House decides, and ultimately what the people decide.
	The whole course of the European project has been to avoid any engagement with the people over what is a non-democratic and largely unsuccessful Union, other than for the transfer of vast sums of money. We have to do something about that, and these opt-ins, opt-outs, see-all-round-abouts amount, in the end, to what the Government disguise and pretend is not really happening, as if it were a grand scheme. I have lost all confidence in understanding what central Government or the Foreign Office do these days, other than remaining quiet.

Tony Baldry: It is always a pleasure to follow a brother knight. I take this opportunity to echo the comments of the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) on becoming a brother knight. The whole House should congratulate you, Madam Deputy Speaker, on having become a Dame Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire, an order of chivalry considerably more senior than that of we mere Knights Bachelor. I can think of no better way of spending my birthday than in group therapy with brother knights, my hon. Friends the Members for Stone, for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), for Aldridge-Brownhills (Sir Richard Shepherd), for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) and for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), so it has been a good debate.
	The issue before us is what is in the national interest, what is in the interests of our constituents, and what will make us safe. In that regard I thought it might be helpful to ask Thames Valley police what they thought about the European arrest warrant. I have rather a high respect for Thames Valley police. I have lived in the Thames valley pretty much all my life and those of us who are Members of Parliament for constituencies in the Thames valley are rather proud of Thames Valley police. They directed me to evidence on the European arrest warrant that was submitted to the House of
	Lords in 2012 on behalf of the Association of Chief Police Officers. ACPO consulted chief constables and police authorities around the country. It was seeking to give advice to the House of Lords on which parts of the opt-out should be opted back into, and it recommended above all else that the European arrest warrant be opted back into under the same arrangements as were then in place.

Bernard Jenkin: When did this House decide to abdicate to ACPO on matters of civil liberty or constitutional importance?

Tony Baldry: I should have thought that, on a matter of law and order, even my hon. Friend would think it might just be sensible to take the advice of police forces up and down the country. Whatever we do in the House ought to be evidence-based, and I should have thought the evidence from police authorities and police forces around the country might be rather cogent and sensible evidence in these circumstances.
	The ACPO assessment confirmed that the European arrest warrant is the most important of all the measures in the area of justice and home affairs. Most of the police forces and chief officers—I am sure that if my hon. Friend, for example, were to ask the chief constable of Essex and the Essex police force, they would make this point to him as well—believe that opting out of the European arrest warrant and relying on alternative arrangements would result in fewer extraditions, longer delays, higher costs, more offenders evading justice, and increased risks to public safety. They went on to say that the European arrest warrant
	“has been in operation for eight years and has now become a mainstream tool. . . In 2010/11 the UK received 5,382 EAW requests and made 221 EAW requests to other EU states. The UK surrendered 1,149 individuals (approximately 7% of which were UK nationals, the other 93% being fugitives to the UK).The UK had 93 people surrendered to it.”
	ACPO observed:
	“These trends in extradition reflect the increasing international patterns of crime and offending. Open borders across Europe, free movement of EU citizens, low cost air travel, cheap telecommunications, the internet and the expansion of criminal networks across national boundaries are all contributory factors to the growth in extradition requests. These are irreversible changes which need to be matched by increasing flexibility on the part of European law enforcement and criminal justice agencies.”
	ACPO went on to say:
	“Further evidence of these changes is to be found in data concerning arrests. Recent data gathered by the MPS”—
	the Metropolitan police service—
	“in the first quarter of 2012 showed that of 61,939 people arrested in London, 8,089 were nationals from EU countries (13%) and 9,358 were foreign nationals from outside the EU (15%). The presence of fugitives from justice fleeing to the UK is a significant public safety issue. In 2011/12 the MPS received 50 EAWs for homicide, 20 for rape, and 90 for robbery. Each of these cases represents a person who is wanted for a serious crime who fled to the UK. There is strong evidence to show that foreign criminals who come to UK continue to offend when in the UK. There is a real risk that opting out of the EAW and relying on less effective extradition arrangements could have the effect of turning the UK into a ‘safe haven’ for Europe’s criminals.”

Dominic Raab: I am listening intently to what my right hon. Friend is saying. We should listen to ACPO, but I do not think that in its
	evidence to the House of Lords Committee ACPO made the argument that he is making in his speech. In respect of fugitives coming to the UK, there is no reason, in or out of the European arrest warrant, why we cannot just deport them. Deportation powers would provide a much quicker route even than extradition under the European arrest warrant. The wider question is whether we could get people back. That is an important point, but ACPO’s evidence focused on the latter, not the former.

Tony Baldry: I am quoting verbatim from ACPO’s evidence given to the House of Lords. I will share it with my hon. Friend afterwards, but it is verbatim, so I am afraid that he has misdirected himself or misremembered the evidence that ACPO submitted. I am pretty old and gnarled but I can remember from when I practised at the Bar as a prosecutor that it was a nightmare to return foreign offenders overseas using bilateral agreements—it could sometimes take years with multiple applications. I recall application after application at Horseferry road magistrates court as we ploughed through various procedural points to get people deported.
	I go on to quote verbatim, so there is no possibility of misunderstanding for my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab), from ACPO’s evidence to the House of Lords. It says that the European arrest warrant is
	“an efficient system, built upon mutual recognition of criminal justice systems between member states and an obligation to comply with a properly constructed warrant. Barriers which previously existed have been removed. The nationality of the person sought can no longer be a barrier to affecting an extradition request. Under the previous arrangements many European states, such as Germany, France and Poland, did not allow their nationals to be extradited to stand trial and required them to be tried in their home state…Prior to the introduction of the EAW, extradition between European states where it did occur could, and often would, take many months in uncontested cases and many years in contested cases.”
	I can testify to that, having been involved in some of those cases. The evidence continues:
	“EAW data from the Commission to the European Parliament show that across the EU it takes an average of 17 days to surrender a wanted person”.
	Thames Valley police gave me just two very recent examples in which the European arrest warrant had made my constituents safer. Under a recent European arrest warrant, they arrested a Polish individual wanted for armed robbery and burglary in Poland, clearly safeguarding the local community as the Thames Valley police had no intelligence that there were individuals residing in our area who had been assessed as high risk. The warrant was received, processed and executed within 24 hours, removing a potential offender and providing reassurance to the community. Another individual wanted for taking part in the murder of two youths in Milton Keynes was also arrested in Holland under a European arrest warrant. He The European crime unit extradited him to the UK, where he now awaits trial, and two other suspects were sentenced in an earlier trial to more than 30 years’ imprisonment.
	It is said by some, including my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton, that we should rely on deportation and other extradition proceedings, but we need only contrast the speed of those cases with what happened with Abu Hamza. Fourteen years after his
	arrest on behalf of the USA under legal conditions largely identical to the 1957 treaty, he was finally extradited to the USA to face terrorism charges there. Do we really want to see repeated Abu Hamza-type situations in our extradition processes? These are not isolated examples of where the European arrest warrant has been of benefit. Numerous other examples could be cited.
	The European arrest warrant is cost-efficient. If we relied on a 1957-type mechanism we would commit ourselves to footing the legal bill for extradition processes that went on for years and cost the public purse hundreds of thousands of pounds. The public and the judiciary are frustrated that the extradition of terrorists is often delayed for years. The return to the 1957 process could make this long, drawn-out process the norm. That might not have been such a problem 20 or 30 years ago when criminals rarely crossed borders, but nowadays that is routine.
	ACPO concluded in its evidence to the House of Lords and Parliament:
	“The view therefore of ACPO is simple. The EAW works very effectively and increases the safety of the UK public. It is for this reason that ACPO strongly supports the EAW.”
	I hope that before we next debate and vote on this issue in the House, chief constables and police authorities will write to every right hon. and hon. Member making clear the position of local police forces and drawing Members’ attention to the benefits that the European arrest warrant has had in their own areas.
	I fully appreciate that Members of this House oppose anything that has the word “Europe” in it. I genuinely love my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills, but I have heard that speech now about 50 times during the 30 years for which I have been a Member of this House. The fact that one is opposed to the European Union is not sufficient to jeopardise the safety of our constituents or our national interest. The Home Secretary, by opting back into a number of these measures, particularly the European arrest warrant, is, in my view and judgment, doing something sensible, proportionate, in the national interest and, most importantly of all, in the interests of my constituents.

Bernard Jenkin: I am grateful to have the opportunity to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry). The burden of his case appears to be that the efficacy of any extradition arrangements should override any other balanced argument about what might be affected by them. He demonstrates how easy it is to be seduced by expediency, convenience, efficiency and pressure from the police, who have only one objective, and that is not to create more of the stronger human rights or protections for citizens that they feel obstruct their task of creating law and order. That is why this House does not abdicate decisions on matters of constitutional importance or human rights to ACPO.
	The Abu Hamza case took so long because we had lost control of our law and because we no longer control the human rights jurisprudence in our courts. The lesson of that case is precisely the opposite of what my right hon. Friend suggests. We should take control of our own laws by enacting laws from this place rather than abdicating authority to other places, least of all to foreign powers.
	I was struck in this debate by how my right hon. Friend wanted to caricature the objections to the provisions, saying that anybody who is obsessed with the issue of Europe will stand up and object to anything. I am a trustee of the Parliament choir and last night we sang alongside our German counterparts, the Bundestag choir, in Westminster Hall. I stood shoulder to shoulder with a fellow bass from Germany and that is the kind of unity, brotherhood and friendship with our European partners that we want to demonstrate. It should be possible to discuss the practical arrangements we have with each other without being impugned as some kind of right-wing xenophobe, but I am afraid that my right hon. Friend fell into that trap.
	Another striking point about this debate is that although the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), the former Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty), and the Chairman of the Justice Committee, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), each expressed support in principle, they were a great deal more chary about the consequences and effects of signing up to these arrangements than either of the Front-Bench speakers.
	I take on board what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said about the additional protections that she thinks she has obtained for the exercise of the European arrest warrant, whereby we now have domestic legislation in place to deal with matters of disproportionality and dual criminality. That goes to the heart of the wider context of this debate as to whether we really control the terms of engagement that we are entering into with this instrument and whether this House has any control over the terms of engagement that our law has with our membership of the European Community.
	This debate exposes the dislocation between the words of our political leaders and their actions. What we are discussing today feeds the discontent and disillusion that people feel about our politics and politicians and about the UK’s relationship with our EU partners. We have seen across the House the same old cosy consensus between those on both Front Benches that encouraged UKIP to such new heights in the recent European elections.
	The very title of the debate, which says that it is a general debate on the UK’s justice and home affairs opt-outs, is misleading. The UK has already exercised our opt-outs from the justice and home affairs provisions under the Lisbon treaty. This debate is about whether the Government should opt back in to 35 of these measures. Unlike what was agreed—it pains me to say this—about these provisions at Lisbon by the previous Government, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is proposing a major and permanent transfer of power from the UK to the EU: a transfer of more sovereignty which, nevertheless, escapes a referendum under the European Union Act. This is yet another example of politicians seeking to provide reassurance to voters without actually meaning it. The transfer includes a permanent commitment to the notorious European arrest warrant, which is intended to remove the recourse of a citizen of the UK to the courts in the event of such
	a warrant, whatever UK legislation is place, with the new provisions themselves vulnerable to being overridden by the European Court of Justice.
	The idea that any extradition arrangement we enter into with other EU states would necessarily be subject to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice is, in itself, an admission of how overreaching the European treaties have become. There are still parts of our law that are immune from the reach of the European Court of Justice. It should be possible to reach an agreement with the European Union that the European Court of Justice will not arbitrate in disputes between the United Kingdom courts and the European courts in such matters. The fact that there is an assumption that the European Court of Justice will preside over any dispute between the United Kingdom and the EU on any matter demonstrates how overarching the reach of the Court under these treaties already is. That goes to the heart of what we are tangentially discussing, which is the future of the UK’s relationship with our European partners.

William Cash: I agree with everything my hon. Friend is saying. In the United Kingdom, as compared with all the other 27 member states, we are in a unique position. Our European Communities Act is a voluntary Act. We do not have a written constitution. We are able to make the changes that are necessary to regain our sovereignty. When the Prime Minister says that our national Parliaments are the root of our democracy, he knows, and so do the Government, that we still retain the right to be able to make the changes in order to extract ourselves from situations that we regard as not being in our national interest.

Bernard Jenkin: I agree with the Prime Minister and with my hon. Friend on that point.
	The Prime Minister recently told the “Today” programme that he wants to pursue a relationship with our European partners based on “trade and co-operation” and on being “an independent nation state”. I have to say that I cannot find any strand of consistency between the measures in this Command Paper and the aspirations expressed by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
	May I remind my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who is not in her place at the moment, of what we said in the House about the European arrest warrant when we were in opposition? My right hon. Friend the Justice Secretary, as shadow Home Secretary, said in 2009 that it “undermined civil liberties”. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, as shadow Justice Secretary, said in 2008 that
	“once such things are subject to the European Court of Justice and the Commission…the Government will lose all control over standing up for United Kingdom interests in these areas”.—[Official Report, 29 January 2008; Vol. 471, c. 176.]
	He also pointed out that the European arrest warrant
	“is very different from…an international treaty obligation that the United Kingdom could decide not to follow if it infringed the human rights of those affected. We will be surrendering the final say about that entirely to a supranational body.”—[Official Report, 29 January 2008; Vol. 471, c. 175.]
	The Foreign Secretary, as shadow Foreign Secretary, chided the previous Government for not keeping their promises on the EU when he said:
	“Time and again they have made promises that they would not hand over powers to Europe, particularly on justice and home affairs, and time and again they have done exactly that, not least through the treaty.”—[Official Report, 4 March 2008; Vol. 472, c. 1684.]
	My right hon. Friend now has to eat those words.
	The Conservative party manifesto of 2010 promised
	“three specific guarantees—on the Charter of fundamental rights, on criminal justice, and on social and employment legislation—with our European partners to return powers that we believe should reside with the UK, not the EU.”
	Why have we abandoned that? It was based on a speech the Prime Minister made when in opposition, in which he promised to negotiate the three guarantees, one of which was
	“limiting the European Court of Justice’s jurisdiction over criminal law to its pre-Lisbon level, and ensuring that only British authorities can initiate criminal investigations in Britain.”
	Why have we abandoned that?
	Much more recently, the Prime Minister wrote in The Sunday Telegraph on 16 March 2014 that one of the key changes he would seek in a renegotiation with the EU was:
	“Our police forces and justice systems able to protect British citizens, unencumbered by unnecessary interference from the European institutions”.
	Why have we abandoned that already? What did he intend to convey to voters in advance of the European elections? Surely not that he intended to do exactly the opposite a few weeks after the close of poll.
	This year’s Conservative European election leaflet stated:
	“We stand for a new relationship with the EU, bringing power back to Britain and away from Brussels”,
	by, among other things,
	“taking back control of justice and home affairs”.
	If the UK intends to bring powers back in our renegotiation after the next election, it is a strange way for the Prime Minister to begin setting out his stall by giving up the very powers he said he would not give up.
	That raises the question about the pressure on Ministers to continue supporting the process of EU integration because of coalition politics. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary’s blank denial that there could be any alternative to the European arrest warrant underlines that she may well have fallen prey to such pressures. Notwithstanding the fact that the main party in power has a different policy and was elected having opposed Nice, Amsterdam and Lisbon, Whitehall appears to be continuing to implement those treaties according to a policy of business as usual. More powers are being transferred from the UK to the EU, with EU legislation encroaching ever more on our justice system, as though there had been no change of Government.
	I do not doubt that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is acting on advice and with complete integrity, but it may help if I, as Chairman of the Public Administration Committee, remind the House how advice to Ministers works in a coalition. The civil service is enjoined to serve the Government as a whole, not individual party agendas or the different agendas of individual Ministers. It comes as no surprise, therefore, that no serious consideration has been given to any
	alternative policy of negotiating a permanent bilateral agreement on these matters, like the 170 or so sovereign states that are not members of the EU.
	If my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary had been minded to ask for credible submissions to support such a policy and then to act on them, it is not only the status quo in her Department, the Foreign Office and elsewhere that she would have had to fight. She would certainly have had the support of the Conservatives in that—if we were a majority Government, I doubt she would have had the support to act in the way she is acting now—but in this coalition, the quad would have vetoed that policy. It is, therefore, hardly surprising, four years since her appointment, that little work has been done on any alternative policy.

Gerald Howarth: I think it is terribly important that we explain to the public what the quad is about, because it is Westminster-speak and I do not think the public understand that no policy is pursued by civil servants unless four individuals—the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury—sign off on them. Unless they do so, civil servants will not deal with those policies. That is what has stuffed us on the Conservative Benches.

Bernard Jenkin: I am not suggesting for a moment that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is not sincere in her belief. All I am saying is that the incentives against obtaining alternative advice are massive. If someone goes against the grain of the coalition, they are likely to be stopped at the end of the process anyway, so what is the point? And so we finish up in this position.
	That episode highlights how impossible it is to put any political will behind the Prime Minister’s stated aim of a renegotiated relationship with the EU as long as we remain in a coalition with the Liberal Democrats, who take a fundamentally opposite view to ours.

Edward Leigh: I normally agree with everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) says, but I wonder whether this quad thing is a bit of a myth. It is a convenient myth that the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary find useful in explaining why they cannot pursue Conservative policies, but surely the Prime Minister or the Foreign Secretary can instruct their civil servants. I cannot believe it—I may be wrong; my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) is the Chair of the Public Administration Committee—but it is an extraordinary way to run a country.

Bernard Jenkin: It has been made clear throughout the civil service that there can be no policy except Government policy, and Government policy is filtered through the coalition arrangements, over which there is a mutual veto in that unless there is agreement, there is no policy. If the Home Secretary had started out on the premise of an alternative policy—of multilateralism or of a simple bilateral arrangement on such matters—she would have been up against not only the vested interests in the EU, with their determination to block this kind of thing and the residual resistance of the status quo, but the added pressure against attempting to do such a thing that exists in the way the civil service operates under the
	coalition. I am afraid that that is just a fact. On some occasions, Ministers have asked for papers or legislation to be prepared on their behalf, and there has been a blanket refusal because it is not Government policy if it has not been approved by the coalition; that is a fact.
	The episode demonstrates that another year of coalition is another year of paralysis and inertia on EU policy, because the machinery of government is hostage to the coalition. That is another reason why we should either end the coalition in the run-up to the election or, indeed, call an earlier general election. I believe that we will rue the day that we voted—I did not, but the House did—for fixed-term Parliaments.
	The present paralysis also makes nonsense of the Government’s current policy on the EU. I admire the stand made by the Prime Minister over Mr Juncker, but it just shows that although the Prime Minister may get permission within the coalition to make what amount to grand gestures, he cannot get permission for any policy of substance that purports to advance the objectives he has so ably set out.
	The decision on the justice and home affairs opt-ins should be seen in that very serious context, because there are very serious implications. The way in which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister’s challenge to Mr Juncker was dismissed at the Ypres summit indicates that the EU will resist any fundamental reform. That could not be clearer from the events at the summit. We saw not only how the ambiguity in the treaties will continue to be exploited by those who want to carry on the process of centralisation, but how the UK’s attempt to boost the role of national Parliaments—the fourth principle from the Bloomberg speech—was all but eliminated from the final conclusions, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash).
	There should be no need in this House to reiterate the importance of our national Parliament to our democracy, or to point out that under the UK’s constitution Parliament is, and must remain, supreme. However, the Ypres summit and its decisions underline how EU treaties and institutions deny such an essential element of the UK’s constitutional autonomy under the present terms of membership. Since Maastricht, we have seen that opt-outs, subsidiarity and talk of different degrees or speeds of EU integration make no difference to the direction of the EU. Consequently, the legal protections concerning disproportionality and dual criminality are potentially meaningless.
	Incidentally, the removal of the words “ever closer union” from the preamble of the EU treaties would make no change at all to how the European Commission, Court and Parliament behave. It would not remove a single treaty base of a single EU legal instrument or court ruling, and I emphasise that it would not prevent the European Court of Justice from setting aside any domestic protection that we may enact in respect of the European arrest warrant. That is because the EU treaties are not consistent with the UK’s constitutional position, or with the Prime Minister’s stated desire for the UK to be an independent nation state.
	The practical importance of addressing the issues set out by the Prime Minister—they include immigration, freedom of movement, the single market and energy prices—is self-evident. However, any concessions that
	we obtain will be nugatory in their effect unless we also obtain recognition of the main principle at stake—namely, that of the supremacy of the United Kingdom Parliament.
	In the UK, all EU laws and treaties rest upon the UK Parliament, which voluntarily agreed to the 1972 Act. This took place in the context of the unambiguous assurance that national sovereignty would be maintained after we joined. That was set out in the 1971 White Paper. Many subsequent treaties, and measures such as these, have been adopted by Act of Parliament, but the fundamental and ultimate role of the UK Parliament has never been vitiated. Had the UK adopted the EU constitution, that might have changed, but for now at least, the European Communities Act 1972 remains the foundation Act, and every EU law in the UK is subject to the constitutional principle of voluntary acceptance by the UK Parliament.
	Those final conclusions of the European Council, along with so many other statements from other EU leaders and from European institutions such as the Commissioner and the European Parliament, do not accept our view. They speak and act as though the European Parliament is paramount, and attribute only a subsidiary role to national Parliaments, including our own. This reflects the political reality, which we Conservatives spelled out at the time, that the Lisbon treaty is the EU constitution in all but name. This justice and home affairs decision demonstrates that the Government are doing nothing of practical value to challenge that. The lack of any specific constitutional provision in the Lisbon treaty to make it autochthonous—that is, dependent on its own provisions for its authority, like a constitution—does not prevent the majority of EU states or the EU institutions from behaving in that way.
	This question of constitutional supremacy has now reached a critical point. The point in the final Ypres conclusions about the need for “strong and credible” EU institutions but no more than
	“closer involvement of national parliaments”,
	underlines the fact that the EU is set against anything that seeks to reassert the supremacy of the UK Parliament in the European Union. It is beyond any doubt that such a proposal would even be considered, because it would take only one other member state to veto any such proposal.
	In these circumstances, it would be impossible for any leader of the Conservative party to campaign to vote to stay in the European Union, either in a referendum or at the next general election, without making it clear that he had a clear bottom line in the renegotiations that our new relationship with the EU must be based on the supremacy of our national Parliament, at least, and that otherwise, we would have to leave the treaties and seek that new relationship from outside.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. Bearing in mind the speech that we have just heard, I think I need to clarify that, although praying in aid supporting arguments is acceptable, the main purpose of today’s debate is to discuss opting back in. The hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) should perhaps have added at the end of his speech, “For all those reasons, I do not support opting back
	in.” This is not a general debate on the European Union, and I hope that the remaining Members will bear that in mind. Given that the hon. Gentleman looked so closely at the title of the debate, to which he referred at the beginning of his speech, I hope that he will in future pay a little more attention to a debate’s title when preparing the content of his speeches.

Gerald Howarth: I am delighted to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) and, indeed, my right hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry)—a brother knight who had the responsibility of looking after my old school at Bloxham. I have always had great affection for my right hon. Friend the Member for Banbury, even though he has been somewhat unsound on European matters. No doubt he will be awarded some further grand honour by the Association of Chief Police Officers; I can see him as the guest of honour at a grand function, funded no doubt by G4S as there is no public money for such things.
	I agree overwhelmingly with my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex, particularly on the sovereignty of this Parliament. Whereas it is entirely right that we should take into account the evidence of those who are operating at the coal face, such as members of ACPO, it is our duty here in this Parliament to look at the wider issues and the wider consequences.
	I suppose that I take as my text the joint report of the European Scrutiny, Home Affairs and Justice Committees of 26 March, which states in paragraph 1:
	“Whether EU measures covered by the so-called ‘2014 block opt-out decision’ continue to apply to the United Kingdom and become subject to the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice from 1 December 2014 is a profoundly significant issue.”
	That is absolutely right and I pay tribute to the Chairmen and members of those three Committees for their detailed and measured response on this important matter. I also pay tribute to my right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Justice Secretary, on whose shoulders rests the responsibility for charting a course that not only satisfies the coalition, but reconciles the need to protect our constituents and secure law and order in this country, and the need to preserve the rights of this sovereign Parliament.
	I will be brief, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I have just two key concerns and they are very straightforward. The first is that, by opting into these measures, we will lock ourselves into the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice in perpetuity. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) said earlier, home affairs and justice was originally a third pillar matter that was decided on by sovereign nations and was not subject to qualified majority voting. My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex gave a litany of quotations, not least from my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, on the implications of signing up to these measures and subjecting ourselves to the European Court of Justice.
	We have no excuse any more. We have seen how the European Court of Justice has sought constantly to arrogate greater and greater powers, and even to overrule our Supreme Court. We would be failing in our duty to
	the people we represent if we did not spell out to them the very real risks that lay before them if we continue to provide the European Court of Justice with further powers. By doing so, we undermine not only our position in this Parliament, but the interests of our constituents; for they will have no one to whom they can turn if the European Court of Justice continues to exercise these responsibilities.
	My second concern is about the political message that will be sent out by the Government’s decision to opt back into 35 of the measures. As we approach the next general election, Europe is assuming greater and greater significance. Those of us who have banged on about Europe, to use a popular expression, have done so because European matters pervade our national life at every level. The biggest concern that the public have today is immigration. Why is that? It is because the issue of immigration is overwhelmingly about our ability to control our own borders.
	I am sure that I am not alone in finding on the doorstep that our constituents do not believe the Prime Minister when he says that he will hold a referendum if we are returned as a majority Government at the next general election. That is the case, notwithstanding his efforts in vetoing the fiscal treaty, cutting the EU budget, supporting the European Union (Referendum) Bill and, most recently, tackling the issue of the presidency of the European Commission. He has demonstrated his commitment to trying to resolve those matters and addressing the real concerns of the British people, but because he suggested before the last election that we would have a referendum if we assumed power, that has been constantly brought up as though he has failed to deliver on a promise. That referendum was conditional on the Lisbon treaty not having come into force by 2010, but it did come into force and therefore there was no point in holding a referendum.
	As we talk about further negotiations with our European partners on reorganising Britain’s relationship with the EU, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex: this sends a completely different message. We have had the battle with Mr Juncker and expressed the Prime Minister’s rejection of ever-closer union and of the whole project, yet we will be portrayed by our opponents and by the public as having signed up to a raft of measures that touch on some of the most sensitive issues around the protection of our people, such as the ability to deport foreign criminals or return those who have fled the country but are charged with offences in the UK. People are bound to say, “We hear what you say about having a referendum, but when you’re faced with a practical decision on whether to opt back into home affairs and justice measures, you opt back in. We know what that means in terms of the European Court of Justice’s jurisdiction”.

William Cash: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a sort of whiff of appeasement going on here? Basically, we do not want the jurisdiction of European institutions, including the Court, but on the other hand we do not want to resist their intrusion into our becoming more integrated into the European Union. When it comes to the balance between those two positions, the Government increasingly give the impression that they do not want to do that, but they go along with it in practice. That is a very dangerous path.

Gerald Howarth: My hon. Friend is right, and I set out earlier what I felt the dilemma to be. Undoubtedly, the Home Secretary and Justice Secretary are receiving shed-loads of advice from law enforcement agencies, saying that we must protect the European arrest warrant and all our ties with our European partners because to do otherwise would make our task of enforcing law and order more and more difficult.
	I understand where the Home Secretary is coming from, and again I will quote from the excellent European Scrutiny Committee, which is chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone. In its report of 7 November last year, it cited the Home Secretary as having said a year ago on:
	“We believe the UK should opt out of the measures in question for reasons of principle, policy, and pragmatism. And we should only seek to rejoin those measures that help us co-operate with our European neighbours to combat cross-border crime and keep our country safe.”—[Official Report, 9 July 2013; Vol. 566, c. 177.]
	Who could possibly disagree with that? We are all in favour of that and of arrangements that enable the efficacious management of our borders, and the return of criminals and so on, but other issues are at stake. How will the European Court of Justice interpret these matters, and how—as I said a moment earlier—will the public see that? Of course we need to protect the public, but I suggest, as my hon. Friends have done, that we also need to resist the risk of subjecting ourselves to further control by the European Court of Justice.
	How do we bridge the gap? I understand that it is entirely possible that we could have transitional arrangements that could apply from 1 December. Come 1 December, we opt out en bloc and at the same time opt back in on the 35 measures that are the subject of this debate. By then, it is possible to have transitional arrangements to extend our ability to have those measures in force, pending a final decision here in the UK. The Home Secretary has said that Denmark’s opt-out arrangements remain subject to the European Court of Justice. Why do we not have alternative arrangements that do not subject us to the ECJ? We do not need to follow Denmark’s example and can chart our own course. Surely this is a magnificent opportunity for Mr Junker and his cohort to demonstrate their commitment to recognising that the UK’s issues need to be addressed and to accommodate the UK’s concerns. We can provide them with an early opportunity. Come 1 December, they can show us that, yes, they understand the nationwide concern in this country on these matters and come to an accommodation with the UK.
	These are massively important issues. I understand from Ministers that there will be a proper full-day’s debate later this year, followed by a substantive vote, and not in a deferred Division or anything like that, when the House can have its proper say.

David Nuttall: It is a great pleasure, as always, to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth), who put the arguments succinctly. I agree with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin). Both my hon. Friends summed up the flavour of the debate. As we approach the end of the debate, the arguments on both sides have been fairly put, so I will not detain the House for too long.
	As we saw in the recent European elections, there is a strong feeling in this country that we should have less interference from Brussels. The justice and home affairs opt-outs give us a golden opportunity to demonstrate to the British public that we are in tune with how they think about the European Union. They want less interference from Brussels, not more.
	There is a strong feeling that people thought they were entering a common market back in 1973, and they voted to remain members of it in 1975. It was referred to back then as the European Economic Community and the Common Market. Effectively, it was a free trade area. However, those behind the grand euro project were not satisfied with just a common market. They saw it as just the first step towards building a single European superstate. The European Economic Community soon became just the European Community—the word “economic” was dropped altogether, reflecting the wider and grander aims of the European project. The European Community swiftly became the European Union, as another step was taken towards creating a single superstate.
	Why did I start with that background? I did so because the European Union’s powers over justice and home affairs are an example of its growing power and influence. It has become far more than just a common market. It already has its own Parliament, its own flag, its own national anthem, its own civil service, its own foreign and diplomatic service and its own court. It has all the attributes of a state, so it is no surprise that those behind the European project want to develop a single European-wide system of justice and home affairs.
	At a time when there is a desire among millions of our fellow citizens for the European Union to have less influence, we should be taking this golden opportunity to take back powers. Let us be clear on what is at stake: above all else, this is a matter of principle. If we exercise an opt-in—voluntarily, because there is no obligation on this country to opt in—it will mean that yet again the powers of the institutions of this country will be reduced and power transferred to the institutions of the European Union. At a time when we are saying to the British public that we want powers back from Brussels, it is not, I would venture to suggest, a very good start to voluntarily give up power over these 35 different measures.
	As the Government themselves said when they gave evidence to the House of Lords European Select Committee:
	“the practical effect of the ECJ gaining full jurisdiction in this area after the transitional period”—
	which, of course, means from 1 December 2014—
	“is that the ECJ may interpret these measures expansively and beyond the scope originally intended. This concern is compounded by the fact that the ECJ has previously ruled in the area of Justice and Home Affairs in unexpected and unhelpful ways from a UK perspective”.
	So there we have it. The Government know that there is a real risk that once these powers are handed over to the EU there is no turning back and the European Court of Justice can interpret them as they think fit.
	In the Government’s response to the European Scrutiny Committee’s November 2013 report on the block opt-out, the Government said the following about the rulings of the ECJ:
	“We have also set out our concerns with the impact of these judgements on the domestic law. If we disagree with the ECJ’s interpretation of legislation, it will be impossible for the UK to
	amend the law itself. Indeed, it would be very difficult to alter it at all as this would require the Commission to propose an amendment to the EU legislation itself, or a cohort of Member States to do so under the auspices of a Member State initiative.”
	Such a cohort would have to consist of a quarter of all member states. The European Parliament’s agreement would also generally be needed to amend the relevant EU legislation.
	We must not forget that the European Court of Justice, in determining cases, would start to apply its human rights jurisprudence, arising from the European Union’s own charter of fundamental rights, to the UK’s policing and criminal justice system. It would, therefore, be all very well for us to try to negotiate or even unilaterally opt out of the European convention on human rights, but the fact remains that if we remain members of the European Union, we would be bound by the European Court of Justice and its implementation of the EU’s charter of fundamental rights.
	Perhaps the most worrying of the measures that it is proposed to opt back into is the European arrest warrant. We have heard much about it this afternoon, but let us be clear about what the European arrest warrant means. It gives other countries in the European Union the power to demand that a British subject be removed from this country and incarcerated in a foreign jail without any evidence being placed before a British court. Worst of all, the European arrest warrant could be used for some act or omission that is not a criminal offence in this country, where the conduct is wholly within a foreign country. Indeed, that aspect—dual criminality—was one of the principal grounds that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister used to argue against the introduction of the European arrest warrant in the Extradition Act 2003. He voted against it.
	There is perhaps a silver lining to every cloud. As someone who thinks that this country would be better off outside the European Union, let me say this in conclusion. If the Government decide, as I am sure they will, to opt back into these measures—despite what those of us who have reservations might think, I am sure that in the fullness of time this House will vote to allow the Government to do so—they will hand over power to the European Union on these issues for ever more. However, in so doing, they will provide yet another reason why, I believe, in the fullness of time millions of our fellow citizens will decide that the only way for this country to regain its own sovereignty will be to vote to leave the European Union.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: It is a particular pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall), although I am delighted that the Lord Chancellor will reply to the debate, because I believe he is the one person remaining in the Government who still believes what he believed in opposition. It is reassuring that at least some people do not find the trappings of office take them away from their previous beliefs.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) mentioned, we have already looked at the falsehood that is in the title of this debate. We are meant to be debating the opt-outs, but they were decided a year ago. We are debating the opt-ins. That is all of a piece with the spin and the flimflam around this
	issue. We are not trying to stick to the facts. We have had bold promises—promises raised by the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz)—about consultation with Parliament and how we would be kept fully informed: a fine promise and constitutionally proper, but regrettably ignored.
	We found out some information about the Prüm declarations not from a statement to this House or from evidence given to a Select Committee, but via a website called Statewatch, which reproduces leaked documents. It reproduced a “Limité” document from the European Union. “Limité” documents from the European Union can be shared with the European Scrutiny Committee and we would then hold them confidentially. This one was not, perhaps because what it said was rather embarrassing. It stated:
	“The UK government has also indicated that in a number of other cases it will set in motion a process towards the subsequent opting in to certain other instruments of particular importance.”
	So it is not 35 opt-ins; it is more than 35, which they are not willing to tell us about through proper processes. We find out through leaked documents. Actually, it is not 35 anyway, because 14 were already subject to the block opt-out. So we are starting at 49, not 35, and the spin around it tries to lessen the impact of what is happening.
	The failure to inform Parliament is, I think, even worse. There was a Council meeting on 24 June, after which the European Union put out a press release stating that
	“the Council noted the conclusion reached between the Commission and the UK on the list of non-Schengen ex-third pillar measures which the UK will seek to rejoin”—
	I emphasise “conclusion”. The written statement from the Minister provided to the House about a week later—we should note the delay before we were informed—said that
	“the UK Government and the Commission had reached an understanding”.—[Official Report, 30 June 2014; Vol. 583, c. 48WS.]
	There is a significant difference between an understanding and a conclusion: one has a finality about it, which does not leave much room for parliamentary consultation, while the other implies a continuing process. We have thus had a series of failures properly to inform Parliament—a failure to be entirely straight with the British people.
	The effects are severe. The change from the third pillar to Lisbon is a major transfer of sovereignty, as established by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North, who quoted the Government’s own words in saying that. It is not, however, only the Government and the European Scrutiny Committee that make this clear, as it can be seen in the Home Affairs Select Committee, too. This is important because that Select Committee is not made up of shaven-headed Eurosceptics; it is chaired by a former Minister for Europe who views himself very much as a pro-European. His Committee’s report said:
	“If the Government proceeds with the opt-in as proposed, we note that it will not result in any repatriation. Indeed, the increased jurisdiction of the ECJ may result in a net flow of powers in the opposite direction.”
	Yet we have heard statements from Ministers saying precisely the reverse. There must be a thin line between on the one hand the point at which Ministers say things
	that are different from what they say to House of Lords Select Committees and from what reports of respected Committees of this House have said and on the other hand the sin of misleading Parliament. I know we will watch like hawks to ensure that that thin line is never breached.
	Of the much-trumpeted opt-outs of nearly 100 items, 43 never applied to the United Kingdom in the first place. I have a list of the remainder. I asked 190 parliamentary questions to establish this list and to find out how many of the items were of any importance. Thirty three have been implemented and will bring no change at all; 12 have been implemented de facto and, again, there will be no change; two have been implemented but never used; and two have not been implemented. That leaves one, the Council Act of 17 June 1998, which has been implemented and will suffer from some change. Excluding Prüm, there is no repatriation of sovereignty at all from any of our opt-outs.
	That leads us to the alternatives—those measures that the Government wish to remain within, as is clear from the treaties and from questions of international law. The treaties make it clear that provision is made for transitional arrangements. Hence, there need be no worry about a great chasm opening up on 1 December, when this mass horde of 125 criminals will suddenly appear on our shores, about which we should be terrified. It will not be like that at all because of the transitional arrangements.
	Then there is the possibility of bilateral arrangements. The Home Secretary’s response on bilateral arrangements was so feeble: we know she has lost her much-respected special adviser, but I had not realised that the person on work experience was now writing her speeches. Just because the European Union does not like it—the Commission indicated that it would not accept it—are we saying that we should not use our power and influence as one of the great nations of the world and even try to negotiate what we want with an international body? Should we immediately kowtow and give in? What sort of a Home Secretary takes that approach?

Bernard Jenkin: It seems from the stance adopted by the Government that we are being invited to believe that the European Union is a deeply unreasonable institution that holds very hard and fast positions on which it is not prepared to compromise even in its own interests, let alone the interests of its member states. Does my hon. Friend not think that we should have tried a bit harder?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: That is exactly the point I was making. It bodes ill for any proposal for renegotiation if that is the starting point. The moment the European Union says “We don’t like that very much, chaps” and we say “Oh, we’re frightfully sorry, m’lord”, we are not even going to try. We shall perform the kowtow, that wonderful act performed in front of Chinese emperors, whereby people would abase themselves three times before approaching the throne. That may be appropriate to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, enthroned in splendour as you are, but it is not, I think, the way in which Her Majesty’s Government should behave when dealing with international bodies.
	Then there is the European arrest warrant, and the so-called guarantees that we have. As has already been established during the debate, European law trumps Acts of Parliament. So we can say that the European arrest warrant must not apply unless there is dual criminality, but unless the European Union accepts it, that is not the case, and dual criminality does not have to be shown in relation to 32 specified crimes where the arrest warrant applies. What the Prime Minister said to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North during Prime Minister’s Question Time yesterday was, I am sorry to say, not factually accurate.
	As for the numbers, I have banged on about them because of the hysteria that we hear from the proponents of the arrest warrant, who claim that our whole nation’s security is dependent on it. On average, 125 people are brought back to this country each year to face trial. In that context, the arrest warrant is to our benefit and in our interest. The people whom we expel we ought to be able to expel under our own law, and would be able to if only we had the gumption to pass our own laws. As was said earlier, we are now willing to sacrifice the fundamental principle of Magna Carta: that no one will be imprisoned, fined or held against their will without the judgment of a court. We are now willing to allow that principle to be abrogated by a Polish magistrate. Surely, wise and good though Polish magistrates may be, it is not worth the theft of a wheelbarrow to undermine something that has been our protector for 799 years.
	I want to deal with the politics of this as well, for where does it leave not only the Government but the Conservative party, which had, until a few weeks ago, a really sensible, logical, well-thought-through position on the European Union. It had a strong and sound and firm position, which was to go for renegotiation and repatriate powers. Repatriate powers? When we have just surrendered them? Wave the white flag, and then, two hours later, put up the Union Jack at half mast? Will anyone believe that we have a hope of repatriating powers if we surrender them now? Will anyone think that opting into 35 measures, 49 measures, and a few more secretly, is the beginning of a renegotiation? Will anyone believe the promises made by politicians or the policies on which we stood at the last election—as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North revealed to us—or the soaring oratory of our Prime Minister, who in 2002, in opposing the European arrest warrant, said:
	“If someone came before him who had committed an offence that was not a crime in this country, according to the district judge, the Home Secretary would have to say, ‘I am sorry. You may spend time rotting in a Greek or Spanish jail…But there is nothing I can do about it.’”—[Official Report, 9 December 2002; Vol. 396, c. 109.]
	So, in 2002, the Prime Minister was worried that this would lead to people rotting in Spanish or Greek jails. Now he thinks that rotting in Spanish or Greek jails seems to be a good thing. I do not see the logic in that, but I equally do not see how anyone can rely on what politicians say if in opposition they have backbone and in government they are jellyfish. It is an entirely hopeless way of attempting to run the country.
	Let me end with a reminder of Sir Robert Peel, a great Prime Minister and a distinguished man, one of the most intellectual figures ever to hold the office that he held—and he was Home Secretary as well. When he did his final papers—they were vivas, not papers—so
	clever was he, so intelligent was he, that the public went to listen to him answering the questions, and he got a first-class degree in classics and mathematics. In 1846, he split the Conservative party. He got through a measure that the Conservatives loathed on the back of Opposition votes—something that may happen with the European arrest warrant—but he stood boldly at the Dispatch Box and said, yes, he had changed his mind, yes, what he now thought was different from what he thought before, but it was essential for the good of the nation.
	Do we have that from this Front Bench? Do we have an avowal of the importance of this surrender to Europe, or do we have mealy-mouthed words about the difficulties of negotiation and the problems with coalition? There is not a bold, forthright, intellectual case for change, but merely the convenience of office, and it not only risks damaging the Government and splitting the Tory party, but it surrenders our sovereignty to a body from which we want to get it back. So I say to Her Majesty’s Government,
	“Stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood . . . then imitate the action of the tiger.”

Robert Buckland: It is always a pleasure—nay, an honour—to follow my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), who speaks with vigour and all the colour that we have come to expect from him. Those of us who have known him since long before 2010 know that he is characteristically forthright on these issues. Whether he is absolutely right on them is another matter, however, and it is to the issue about which he has rightly expressed concern today that I now turn, bearing in mind the time remaining and the need for other speakers to make their contributions.
	Yes, the opt-ins do involve some concession of sovereignty. To try and deny that would be wholly wrong. The issue, therefore, is one of competence and the extent to which the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg determines issues that fall to be decided as to the interpretation and operation of the measures, subject to the opt-in. On that, to some degree I share some of the concerns raised by my hon. Friends on the Conservative Benches.
	I am an opponent of judicial activism. As a politician who is philosophically of the centre-right, I do not believe that it is for judges to interpret treaties and other documents as living instruments which adapt according to their view of the world at any one time. We see that problem in the Court at Strasbourg and the Court in Luxembourg, but we also see that problem in the courts here in London, here in England, here in Wales, here in Scotland. This is not an issue that is particular to Europe and its institutions. That is a very important point when we remember the nature and scale of the task before us, because, to my mind, this is not a debate between Westminster and Brussels or Luxembourg; this is a debate about whether it is legislators—politicians—who ultimately determine the extent and ambit of our laws, or whether, as increasingly is the case, our laws are interpreted in different ways by judges.
	The old certainty of politicians passing and enacting the laws and judges implementing them and making determinations on a case-by-case basis gets more blurred
	with the passage of the years, and that worries me, as a Conservative, and I know it worries all my fellow Conservatives. I know it worries my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor. We discussed the matter only yesterday in the Justice Committee, and he made some very wise interventions about his concerns about judicial activism.
	Therefore, I thoroughly understand and embrace the concerns that are being expressed by my hon. Friends. What I take issue with them on is this: the full extent to which the European Court of Justice will have jurisdiction upon the general run of justice and home affairs in this country. I accept that on the opt-out issues it will have jurisdiction, and there are dangers that, as we have seen with other interpretations—for example, of the free movement directive—there could be judicial creep and an extension beyond the original intentions of those who framed the directives we are talking about. But when it comes to the fundamentals of English and Welsh justice, I see no threat to the long-established traditions, customs, laws and practices that we have in our criminal courts. I see no threat to the principle of trial by jury. I see no threat to the inferences that are to be drawn from the exercise by suspects of their right to silence.
	We have had debates on these things. I recall going with my right hon. Friend the Chair of the Justice Committee to Brussels to discuss a directive, which is now coming to the fore, about the inferences to be drawn from the exercise by the accused of the right to silence when arrested. We had a lively discussion in the justice directorate-general about the inappropriateness of that particular directive in its application to the criminal law of England and Wales. That sort of detailed case-by-case, directive-by-directive discussion will be the surest safeguard against the general creep that my hon. Friends and others fear.

Bernard Jenkin: I admire my hon. Friend’s intellectual honesty in admitting that in respect of the European arrest warrant the activities of the European Court of Justice may lead to judicial creep, which may lead to a “wheelbarrow situation” and so on. If such were to occur, who will be accountable?

Robert Buckland: My hon. Friend asks the fundamental question we should always ask, about not just European legislation, but domestic legislation and the way in which we in this House have legislated in an unsatisfactory and ambiguous way that has opened the door to more and more judicial review, more and more challenge and more and more interpretation by domestic courts in ways that were perhaps not envisaged by the legislators. So I repeat the point and turn it back to him: I do not think this is a particular problem at a European level.

Bernard Jenkin: If a wayward British court makes a judgment that is clearly not intended by Parliament but has arisen because of a perfectly legitimate and understandable interpretation of one of our own statutes, we can hold a Minister accountable, we can ask them to bring forward an amendment to the law and we can change the law. If the same happens in respect of European legislation, how do we hold the law accountable?

Robert Buckland: We have mechanisms within the European structure to do that, via the Council of Ministers, renegotiation, treaty change—

Bernard Jenkin: There is the flaw in your argument.

Robert Buckland: I disagree, and I am more than willing to talk briefly about how we renegotiate these things. Talk about repatriation is unhelpful. If we are going to get actual reform in Europe, we have to look at it across the piece. Addressing the issues of judicial activism and the way in which the ECJ interprets the articles of the European treaties is fundamental to any meaningful renegotiation to deal with the democratic deficit argument that my hon. Friend and others posit.

Bernard Jenkin: I am very grateful for my hon. Friend’s generosity in giving way. I have served in this House for more than 20 years and I have seen court judgment after court judgment from the ECJ, or indeed from our own courts—in the Factortame case, famously, even a political agreement reached between the member states about our fisheries was overturned by a decision of the court—where the Minister here says that nothing can be done about it. That has been the case time after time. We are moving these decisions, and their consequences, beyond the democratic accountability of the national Parliament.

Robert Buckland: But remembering that the competence of the ECJ deals with the application of EU law in the UK, we have to be very careful about the words we use, because very often people misunderstand the full ambit of that Court. Another example would be the way in which case law in Strasbourg is wrongly assumed to be the law of this land—it is not the law of this land and never has been, not even under the much-reviled Human Rights Act. There are little misunderstandings that germinate into a general feeling among the public that we have lost control.

Bernard Jenkin: We have.

Robert Buckland: I disagree. It is up to us in this House and elsewhere to show leadership and to explain to people that we have not lost the degree of control that has been suggested. As much as I admire my hon. Friend, I sometimes think that his is a counsel of despair when it comes to the future of Britain in Europe. It is time for us to remind ourselves that we are still a country with huge influence and that we still have a massive part to play in the affairs and future of the European Union. We are one of the biggest economies in Europe, and there are very many strategic interests that make our membership of the EU good not only for us but for other member states.
	Before I resume my seat, I will return to the issues at hand. The European arrest warrant is not only in this country’s interest because we can repatriate UK citizens from other member states who are alleged to have committed crimes in this country; it also ensures that EU nationals who are fleeing and evading justice in their own country can be sent back. Those practical realities bring us back from the theoretical debate that we sometimes have here. We are talking about real lives and the tragedies that surround every criminal case about which we have heard this afternoon, which we know is a real issue for those involved. Let us not forget the human element.
	I have gone through the list of measures, and it seems that the principle of mutual recognition of criminal offences, for example, will be very important not because of the way in which we operate the courts in England
	and Wales but because of the way in which other member states recognise UK criminal convictions, which is an important point. If UK citizens go to other member states and commit offences, it is right and in the general interests of combating crime and properly reflecting criminality that their convictions recorded in the UK are properly recognised. Those are practical measures that not only address the need to combat crime but help to increase trade and commerce—all the efficacy arguments that are a natural part of what it is to be a member state of a developing Union that is the biggest market in the world. It is the continent of which we are a part. I think, therefore, that the practical realities reflected in the opt-in measures are a proper reflection of the absolute need for this country to work hand in hand with other member states and to ensure that we can have a criminal justice system that works well for all British citizens, not just here in the UK but in other parts of the EU.
	The European arrest warrant has been properly criticised on the grounds of proportionality. My hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) will shortly wax lyrical on the matter with his customary expertise and I look forward to his contribution with interest, but I would say that the introduction of the amendments on proportionality in recent legislation goes a long way towards addressing the concerns that he and others have repeatedly expressed. I have the same sorts of concerns about the disproportionate use of such a serious measure. The decision to extradite or to remove someone from one jurisdiction to another is a serious step to take.
	We have to be practical about this issue, and the Government have done everything they can to ensure that, although we have opted out of the general swath of measures—I think that was the right decision—we are, after looking at the evidence on a case-by-case basis, making the proper decision to opt in to the measures that we are debating today. On that basis, I am happy to support my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench.

Dominic Raab: It is a great pleasure, as always, to follow my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland). Although we do not see these issues in exactly the same way, he always provides a huge amount of food for thought, delivered with great style and panache. I apologise to Members on both sides of the House for arriving late to the debate. I gave advance notice to the Speaker. It was because of the two statements and an engagement that I could not get out of.
	I want to start the substance of my comments by welcoming the opportunity for Parliament to scrutinise this issue. Whatever one believes about the substance, we are getting far more scrutiny in this whole area than we ever did under the previous Government. I also want to say that I fully support the Prime Minister’s overarching strategy. In his article in The Sunday Telegraph on 16 March, he made clear his intention to renegotiate Britain’s relationship with the EU, including, as he spelt out explicitly, in the area of crime and policing. I think that he is absolutely right.
	It is worth noting that polling commissioned by Open Europe has found that this matter, far from being some ivory tower issue with no resonance or relevance to the
	public, was the public’s fourth highest priority for renegotiation. It is therefore right not only in principle, but in terms of resonance and relevance to the great British public. Likewise, the Prime Minister showed tremendous moral clarity in fighting not only for Britain, but for an important democratic principle in relation to the next EU Commission President. I feel that we need to do the same now.
	I will avoid rehearsing points I have made in previous debates on the topic, which I know Ministers will have heard until they are blue in the face. I will instead confine my remarks to four key points. First, I believe that we must take a long-term view about the supranational direction of EU justice and home affairs policy, taking into account the evolution of policy and law, the ambitions of the Commission and the tidal direction of travel among EU member states. One does not have to buy into Viviane Reding’s dream of an EU-wide Minister of Justice to see that we are taking incremental steps, slowly but surely, like a slow tide, towards a single EU justice system. We can debate the pace, but I challenge anyone in the House to argue that that is not happening in practice.
	One need only look at Europol and Eurojust. Currently, colleges of national police and prosecutors collaborate on important cross-border work, such as combating drugs, human trafficking and terrorism. Originally they co-operated on an essentially intergovernmental basis, but national democratic control is slowly but surely being whittled away before our eyes, like salami-slicing. If we look at the detail of the two new regulations on Europol and Eurojust, we see a strengthened role for the Commission, additional duties of co-operation on national Governments and, most importantly, the eroding of national Governments’ ability to decline requests for co-operation or to hand over data.
	Eurojust’s revised mandate will provide substantial co-operation with the new EU Public Prosecutor’s Office, which will grow in time, leading to more and more pressure for it to consume functions currently undertaken by Eurojust. That is inevitable. We can see it happening bit by bit. If we were truly drawing a line in the sand, would we not make it clear now that we will not be opting into those new measures?
	At the same time, if we opt into the basket of measures, as the Government propose doing, we will hand from the British Supreme Court to the European Court in Luxemburg the last judicial word on the scope of these swelling supranational powers and our corresponding national democratic duties. I, for one, am reluctant to see that happen because of the European Court of Justice’s record of judicial activism. In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon, the difference is that judicial activism in the UK can be overruled by elected and accountable Members in this House. That democratic control is not available in relation to decisions of the ECJ, which are being extended bit by bit.
	We saw that in the High Court last year, when Mr Justice Mostyn, hardly a right winger on the judicial benches, made it very clear that, to his great surprise, the ECJ had torn up our opt-out from the EU’s new charter of fundamental rights. We saw it with the ECJ’s attitude towards the extraterritorial application of the EU Tobin tax to Britain—although, those proceedings are still ongoing. And we saw it this year with the ECJ’s frankly ludicrous ruling on internet search engines, conjuring
	from thin air a “right to be forgotten.” That is important, because we can argue about the rights and wrongs of privacy and transparency, but that was patently judicial activism, and there is very little that we in this House can do about it.

William Cash: We are talking about not just one judge but several judges who are making similar remarks. They are genuinely demonstrating a frustration with the overarching jurisdiction of the European Court. In the past few months, we have seen Lord Mance and several others making similar comments. They are conscious of the difficulties that are arising.

Dominic Raab: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that this is a growing problem, and I think that that is recognised at senior levels of the judiciary. We should listen with as much vim and vigour to what the judges have to say as we do to what the Association of Chief Police Officers says.
	On the internet search engine ruling, it is important to say that there is a cultural and values issue at stake. It is not just some legal constitutional issue. A right to be forgotten may suit French privacy laws that gag the publication of the peccadilloes and crimes of the rich and powerful, but it directly cuts against our tradition of media freedom, transparency and free speech.
	Having seen the effect of ECJ judicial activism on this area of crime and policing, do we really want to allow the ECJ to determine the powers and responsibilities of British police forces, the British criminal process and even foreign forces, through joint operations, operating on British soil? That is a huge risk for us, and I fear that we risk the Luxembourg Court doing for British policing what the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg has done for UK border controls.
	One reason why I refuse uncritically to defer to ACPO on these issues is that it is ill-equipped to gauge the long-term threat to operations and ultimately public safety of these developments. These are constitutional developments, so it is not just a question of consulting on the administrative arrangements that we have in place now. If anyone in favour of opting back into these measures had listened to this debate, they would have thought that ACPO had been wholeheartedly in favour of opting into more measures than we are doing. If we look at the evidence it gave to the House of Lords Constitution Committee, we would see that it only recommended opting into 13 measures, which is substantially fewer than the number that we are planning to opt into.
	The second issue that I wish to address is the European arrest warrant. Many Members will have their own constituency horror stories, and I am afraid that I am no different. In fact, my constituency seems to attract problematic cases. The one that sticks in my mind and, frankly, in my throat is the case of Colin Dines, a former judge of impeccable character who was falsely accused of involvement in a major mafia-related Italian telecoms fraud. The story would be almost amusing if it were not so tragic. Without any evidence presented or any opportunity for him to explain his innocence to the Italian authorities, which he was confident that he could do, he was the subject of a European arrest warrant, which was nodded through by our courts, as they must be. He faced the prospect of incarceration or,
	at best, house arrest for months on end until his trial. Tragically, the only thing that temporarily saved him from being carted off was that he had a stroke from the stress of it, which meant that he was temporarily deemed not fit to travel. The case remains hanging over him like the sword of Damocles, which is totally unacceptable. It is also unacceptable for me as a law maker in this House to see the fate of citizens across this country.
	That case is not an isolated injustice. If Members want to grasp the scale of the justice gap under the EU law and the European arrest warrant, they should listen again to our senior judiciary, such as our top extradition judge who gave evidence to the independent inquiry into extradition carried out by Sir Scott Baker. Lord Justice Thomas said that the European arrest warrant system is “a huge problem”—his words. He did not say that it was a small problem, or that there were isolated incidences, but that it was a huge problem that had become “unworkable”.
	I pay tribute to the Home Secretary who has looked very carefully at what can be done within the EU framework decision. Additional safeguards were introduced by the Government in the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 and they are positive steps in the right direction, and the Government deserve great credit for looking at the matter so carefully. In my opinion, the safeguards do not go far enough. That is also the opinion of Fair Trials International. In particular, the bar on extraditing suspects when the case is not trial-ready could be made tighter. I fear that the new leave to appeal requirement undercuts all the safeguards introduced. Above all, it is a shame that we were not allowed any time on the Floor of the House to debate those clauses, important and positive as they were, because they were introduced late in Committee.
	I understand from Ministers that there is no appetite in Brussels to revise the EU framework decision itself, a point that I make to my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon. That is a sad reality that we have to accept. The question is what we do next. I believe the preferable option would be to opt out of the European arrest warrant and a renegotiate a bilateral extradition treaty with a limited number of extra safeguards—the few modest additions that we need to make it safe for our citizens. We would still have fast-track extradition, but we would stop the justice system in effect selling our citizens out, which is what it does at present.

Alan Beith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dominic Raab: Very briefly, as I need to allow time for the winding-up speeches.

Alan Beith: Does the hon. Gentleman envisage bilateral extradition treaties with each individual member state?

Dominic Raab: I shall address that point squarely in a moment. I need to move on fairly swiftly.
	In the meantime, between the renegotiation and the opt-outs, we could temporarily continue the EAW arrangements for, say, a year to allow the conclusion of the negotiation. In the worst-case scenario, if partner states in Brussels refused, we would have to fall back on
	the Council of Europe conventions that predated the European arrest warrant. It has rather breathlessly been suggested that without the EAW, we would risk letting people such as Jeremy Forrest or terrorists such as Osman Hussein go scot-free. That is irresponsible nonsense, and it must be addressed head on. Ideally, we would negotiate a bespoke extradition treaty, as I have suggested. We want something between the old cumbersome conventions and the current automaticity, but even under the Council of Europe treaties, the main temporary effect would be to delay extradition proceedings from weeks to months. That would not mean any fugitive or suspect going free or any increased risk to the British public.
	I have asked a range of parliamentary questions and written to Ministers on this, and I am grateful for the replies that I have received. The evidence is clear. There certainly are gaps under the Council of Europe conventions. They do not apply to some tax offences, but that is not the same as dangerous criminals threatening public safety. Even then, fewer than 0.4% of prosecutions for tax offences last year were facilitated by a European arrest warrant. The second gap is that Council of Europe conventions would require us to respect the statute of limitations on crimes in other EU jurisdictions. Again, that is hardly the kind of loophole that would stop the hot pursuit of dangerous fugitives. The third gap relates to EU countries that limit extradition of their own nationals, except under an EAW. That would affect extradition requests to Latvia, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Belgium and Germany.
	It is a very odd argument that we must accept the injustice of the European arrest warrant for British nationals because a few other countries have stronger safeguards protecting their citizens in their normal extradition arrangements. In any case, it will have become clear to the House that none of these temporary gaps under the Council of Europe conventions would apply to people such as Jeremy Forrest and Osman Hussein. It is irresponsible scaremongering to suggest that they would. Opting out of the European arrest warrant, on the Government’s own evidence to me, might for a relatively short period delay EU extradition proceedings while we conclude a better arrangement, but the risk of dangerous fugitives going free is negligible. Public safety is a perfectly respectable, reasonable and legitimate argument to weigh against the threat to individual liberty. We do it in the House all the time. Administrative convenience is not.
	The third issue I wish to address is that the Government are considering opting into Prüm measures on data sharing, which would cover fingerprints, DNA, car registration details and so on. There are serious reservations about the impact of this on British citizens, and serious risks. The UK DNA database is far bigger than any other EU database, and innocent British citizens are far more likely to find their samples caught up in a foreign criminal investigation. EU authorities are more likely to assume that the availability of UK DNA samples is a strong indicator of previous criminal behaviour. We know that the EU standard for matching DNA samples is 40% less accurate than the UK standard, which accentuates the risks. Taken together, the Prüm data sharing, the European investigation order and the European arrest warrant make up a rather dangerous cocktail for an unprecedented number of future miscarriages of justice. The House should have no illusions about that.
	My final point is about the alternative to opt-ins. The EU has legal personality in the JHA field, so, to answer the point made by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), if we were refrain from opting back into any of these measures we can negotiate with one party and not 27. So that we understand that it is a practical right and not a theoretical one, let me explain that the EU has already done that with 24 other non-EU countries in JHA, so there is no reason in principle or practice why Britain cannot do the same. I ask Ministers whether that question has been raised in Brussels and what precisely the objections were. If the Government do not feel that that is feasible, has a marker at least been laid down in Brussels about future British renegotiation, making it clear that we will want to return to the whole area of JHA in the round, given what has been said?
	I suggest that at the very least the Government, or perhaps even the Prime Minister, should make the context behind the decisions clear by letter to the new Presidents of the Commission and of the Council. If not, I fear that this, our best opportunity to demonstrate that we can deliver renegotiation in Europe, runs the risk of being perceived both at home and across the EU as a signal that when push comes to shove our deeds do not match our words.

Sadiq Khan: This has been a good debate. By the time we finish, it will have lasted for more than four hours. We have had some excellent speeches, and even some from hon. Members who are not lawyers or Chairs of Select Committees. All 12 speeches have done the important job of holding the Executive to account. They have all been passionate, demonstrating huge expertise on and experience of the issue.
	Let me begin, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) did, by saying that I support most of what the Home Secretary said. Both she and my right hon. Friend made the point that it is no longer the case, if it ever truly was, that tackling crime and keeping the public safe can be achieved solely within our own borders. Crime and the criminals who perpetrate it do not abide by the borders of nation states. Both Front-Bench speakers gave examples of organised crime, terrorism, cybercrime, big drugs cases and serious sexual offences that crossed borders. The world is increasingly interconnected by the movements of people and the movement of trade, and that is all made even more complex as technology moves ahead at a fast pace. We need to ensure that the systems we have in place to prevent crime from taking place and catch those who commit it keep up with that fast pace.

William Cash: rose—

Sadiq Khan: I have only a short time in which to speak, but I will give way later if I can.
	We owe it to the victims of crime to do what we can to prevent further victims and to bring to justice those who have inflicted harm and misery on others. Part of that involves working closely with our European partners across the European Union to establish working relationships that allow each member state to tackle crime and the community as a whole to cut crime.
	As I said, we have heard 12 speeches. The Chairs of the three Select Committees—the European Scrutiny Committee, the Select Committee on Home Affairs and the Select Committee on Justice—all reported extensively on the Government’s proposals and their concerns about the process, as well as some of their concerns about the substance of the measures. There has been criticism of the fact that the past two debates have been general debates without a vote. In particular, we have discussed whether Parliament will be given a vote on the Government’s decisions, how many votes there will be, when they will take place and the format in which they will take place, as well as whether each of the measures will be debated and voted on.
	Let me be clear that the Opposition will consider all the measures on the basis of what helps the fight against crime. We will not allow anti-European Union feelings to cloud our view of what works. What is needed is a considered response on the issues raised by Back Benchers on the important role that European institutions can and do play in fighting crime.
	The first speech was from the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), who reminded us of his “mild interest” in matters European over the past three decades. Towards the end of his speech, he read out a list of questions that he asked the Justice Secretary to answer. We also look forward to hearing the answers.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) admitted to being a usual suspect. He asked—I am looking forward to the answer—whether there will be a separate vote on the European arrest warrant, about which his Select Committee has raised serious concerns. The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) explained that this process has taught him how difficult it is to get blood out of a stone. He said that notwithstanding his concerns about the process, he supports the measures that assist in fighting crime.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) reminded us that the European arrest warrant is not perfect and gave an example of one of his constituents who is suffering as a consequence. He explained how it had helped to bring back to this country one of those alleged to have been involved in the 21 July bombings who was subsequently charged and convicted and is currently behind bars.
	The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Sir Richard Shepherd) reminded us of his experience of seven Parliaments and expressed concern about the European arrest warrant. The right hon. Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) told us how thrilled he was to be sharing his birthday with his brother knights and the rest of us; the sad thing is that he was not joking. He also told us about the evidence from ACPO and its concerns about the European arrest warrant.
	The hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) is also the Chair of a Select Committee. I am sorry that I missed his performance in the choir last night with German colleagues. He reminded us—this is a really important point—that, unlike Lisbon, the opt-ins are permanent and therefore a transfer of power. He reminded us of what the Justice Secretary, when shadow Home Secretary, told us about his views on the European arrest warrant, and of what the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary said about it, and asked whether they would now be eating their words.
	The hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) reminded us, and his party, of what political message it would send if we opted into all 35 measures. The hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) expressed his concern about the European single market morphing into a European superstate. He was particularly concerned, like many other colleagues, about the European arrest warrant, and reminded us, as have many others, of what the Prime Minister said about it previously.
	I must confess—I hope my Whips are not listening—that I always enjoy the speeches by the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg). His 13 minutes were magnificent. I admit that I did not agree with most of what he said, but his speech was a tour de force in terms of quality. He was confident, as only he could be, that the trappings of office would not mean that the Justice Secretary no longer espoused all the views he held on the European arrest warrant only five years ago. We will wait to see what he says in five or six minutes’ time.
	The hon. Gentleman reminded us that we are opting into not 35 measures, but 49, and referred to the other 14. He also wondered whether people who are considering voting Conservative would have confidence in a Prime Minister and a party who went into the election promising to repatriate rights from 2015 onwards if they were giving up rights in the preceding 10 months. His message to the Prime Minister, if I understood him correctly, is that there is a danger of having a backbone in opposition but being a jellyfish in government.
	The hon. Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) expressed concern, as have many others, about judicial activism and too much intervention. He also pointed out that the fundamentals of British courts and justice are not necessarily threatened by the ECJ having jurisprudence.
	The last speech was made by the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab), who has huge expertise in this area. He made four key points. He warned about a single European justice system and said that sooner or later we may end up with that destination if concerns are not expressed now. Again, he highlighted concerns about the European arrest warrant, and referred to individual cases.
	Six of the 35 measures relate to justice, my area of responsibility, and the Chair of the Justice Committee touched on most of them: the data protection secretariat, the data protection framework decision, the application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties, prisoner transfers, the European supervision order, and trials in absentia.
	For the sake of brevity, I will touch on only one of those issues, namely prisoner transfers. From his time as a Minister in the previous Government, my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn knows full well the importance of transferring foreign prisoners to their home countries to serve out their custodial sentences. He negotiated many of the agreements that are still in place. However, since 2010, only four further agreements have been negotiated by the current Government, compared with the 50 negotiated by my right hon. Friend and other colleagues in the previous Government. One in eight of those behind bars in England and Wales is a foreign national, and the Chair of the Home Affairs
	Committee reminded us that the cost to the British taxpayer is £300 million a year. That is why it is so important that we get this right.
	The Home Secretary was right to refer to the case of the Latvian prisoner who was sent back to Latvia last month, but the numbers transferred are still pitifully low. When the Justice Secretary responds, will he tell us what progress he has made in persuading other countries to take their own prisoners back from the UK? I appreciate that Poland has a derogation, but the other countries do not.
	I will not refer to the measures we are not going to opt into, except to ask whether the Government are considering having impact assessments on them. That question has been asked by Members of the other place. I appreciate that we now have impact assessments on those measures that we are going to opt into, but will there be impact assessments on those that we are not going to opt into?
	Lots of colleagues have made interventions and 12 Members from both sides of the House have made speeches. They have asked many questions and I, like them, am looking forward to hearing some answers from the Justice Secretary.

Chris Grayling: This has been an important debate and I have listened very carefully to the strong opinions expressed. We have heard some passionate speeches and views. My hon. Friends the Members for Aldridge-Brownhills (Sir Richard Shepherd), for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) and for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) set out very strongly the views they hold and their concerns about these matters. We heard some contradictory views from my right hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry)—I wish him a happy birthday—and my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland), who made an important point about unlimited jurisprudence and the way in which international treaties can take us into new areas beyond the intention of those who created them. That point was also made by my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) on that very important issue.
	It is always important to remember how we reached the position we are in. My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) reminded us that, prior to the Lisbon treaty, these matters were all outside the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. They used to be intergovernmental matters. Of course, it was the previous Labour Government who took the decision to put us in the position we are in now. They sold us down this river in a way that should never have happened and left us in the legal position we are in today. It is really important that we as Conservatives always remember the previous Labour Government’s contribution. They accepted a treaty that was supposed to be subject to a referendum, but it never took place, and we in this House were asked to accept a package that I do not believe the British people wanted, although they were not given the opportunity to decide whether to accept it or not.
	That treaty allowed the UK to decide whether to opt out of all the pre-Lisbon justice and home affairs measures, and then to seek to rejoin any that it believed were in the national interest. That process, which we went through last year, had to be carried out en bloc, which meant that it was clunky and could not involve negotiating and debating on a measure-by-measure basis, as with new measures. But that is what the treaty provides for.
	Last year, after extensive discussions within the Government, we agreed that we would exercise that opt-out and seek to rejoin a list of 35 measures. We also agreed that as a Government we wanted to participate in measures that contributed to the fight against international crime, but did not wish to be part of those that sought to create a European justice system. As the House knows, I strongly disagree with the previous Commissioner and others in Brussels who want the creation of such a system.
	It is particularly important for us in this country to maintain the distinctiveness of our justice system, not just because of the core role it has played in our society for 800 years but, to be frank, because of the important competitive advantage it gives our legal services sector around the world. That point was well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton. We are not going to be, and we should not seek to become, part of a Europeanised justice system. I do not believe in such a development, and I certainly do not want this country to be part of it.
	The 35 measures we are discussing are mostly to do with international policing and the fight against international organised crime. As the Chair of the Justice Committee, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), pointed out, the changes made to the list have not altered the balance we discussed earlier this year. The measures are on the list because the Home Office, with its officials and those who work with them, has clearly advised the Government that they are essential to our work in fighting international crime in particular and are therefore in the national interest. That advice has formed a fundamental part of the Government’s strategy.

William Cash: I understand very well where my right hon. Friend is coming from and I think I know where he would like to go, but may I put it to him that when he speaks about not wanting to Europeanise our justice system the truth is that by acquiescing in rejoining the measures—the 35 up to 49 measures—we are submitting ourselves to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, which means doing exactly that? It will Europeanise our position irrevocably, unless in due course we repeal the legislation in this House unilaterally.

Chris Grayling: The Prime Minister set out some of the areas for renegotiation in his article earlier this spring. I hope and believe that a majority Conservative Government will be able to take forward such a renegotiation after the next general election, and the whole area of justice and home affairs needs to be part of that renegotiation process.
	After we secured Commons approval for the opt-out—I was very pleased that the opt-out was exercised last year—we left time for the Select Committees to consider the proposed list before we embarked on negotiations
	with the Commission and other member states. I am acutely aware that the Select Committees said that Parliament was not involved early enough in the process, and we are now seeking to rectify that. The negotiations with the Commission reached a conclusion last month, though some matters are still outstanding in the Council and we are still to get final confirmation about the overall package. Once we reach that point, we can address the question about the process to be followed this autumn.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Stone asked whether there will be another debate. Yes, of course there will. It would be inconceivable to have a vote without a debate. It is worth saying that the Home Secretary and I brought forward publication of the Command Paper because we both believed that it was necessary to give Parliament a further opportunity to engage with the issue. I regret the fact that some information appeared before we could bring it to Parliament. However, that it makes it all the more necessary to ensure that Parliament has access to such information now, and that is why the Command Paper was produced and this debate is taking place. We want to give hon. Members and the Select Committees sufficient time to consider that work before we get to the last lap of this process.
	At this point, it is appropriate for the House to recognise the very hard work done on this issue by the Home Secretary. These were difficult negotiations, and success was by no means guaranteed. Her efforts in particular have been vital in getting us to where we are, and I am sure the House is grateful to her.
	As I have said, we still have to complete some areas of discussion in the Council, so I cannot say that we have finally resolved all the issues in Brussels. However, this is still the opportune and appropriate moment for Parliament to look at where we have got to. We listened very carefully to the concerns expressed earlier this year by the three Select Committee Chairs, and I hope that they feel we have done the right thing by starting the dialogue with Parliament now, even though we have yet to complete the process fully.
	As the House will know, the list of measures relating to my Department forms only a small part of what we are debating, but I want to touch on one measure that does not appear in the list. The House will recall that I have previously set out why we chose not to rejoin the probation measure. I explained that, to our knowledge, the measure has not yet been used, and that there are serious questions about how it might work. I do not believe that it is in our national interest to join the measure at this time and leave the European Court of Justice as the potential arbiter of such questions.
	The Commission and other member states, by contrast, were keen for us to rejoin the measure because they see it as part of a package that accompanies the prisoner transfer agreement. Despite that, we have said that we will not join at this time.
	Our concerns centre on the implications of the measure for our courts, prisons and probation system. What would happen, for example, if someone who had already been transferred breached their licence conditions? Unlike many other member states, the UK does not specify penalties for breaches of community orders or probation. The measure would allow member states to return to us the person we had extradited, but we could not do the same to them. That would place significant potential burdens on our courts and probation system.
	Of course, all of us are very happy to see foreign national offenders returned to their home countries. I have no principled objection to sending prisoners back to serve their probation or community sentence in their home country. However, the measure appears to have potential problems that may materialise once it is in operation.
	We have indicated to the Commission, as I said in our last debate on this matter, that we will take another look at the measure when there is enough evidence of it working and of its impacts to see whether there would be benefits to the UK in taking part. To support that decision, we will publish for Parliament an assessment of the potential impacts. Clearly, we will not agree to join this or any further JHA measure unless it is in our national interest to do so.
	It is important to stress again that this debate has been designed to give the House an update on where we have got to and an opportunity to launch more detailed scrutiny of the process that we have gone through. It has been designed to address the concerns that were raised the last time we debated these issues in the House, which was back in April. We still have work to do in the European Council, in Brussels and in both Houses of Parliament. We will come back to this House when that work is complete. Of course, the two Departments will work closely with the relevant Select Committees to answer questions and discuss the issues in the weeks ahead.
	I hope and believe that the House will accept that we have done the right thing in starting this conversation today, in setting out where we have got to in the negotiations and in setting out a process that will allow the kind of scrutiny that we were challenged over earlier in the year. I hope that the three Select Committees feel that we are taking things in the right direction. We have a bit of work left to do. This has been a valuable debate. These are serious issues and the House will have to reach a conclusion about our direction on them before too long. I hope that this debate will be the start of a valuable dialogue that helps Members on both sides of the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House has considered the UK’s Justice and Home Affairs opt-outs.

Business without Debate

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Pensions

That the draft Pensions Act 2011 (Consequential and Supplementary Provisions) Regulations 2014, which were laid before this House on 17 June, be approved.—(Anne Milton.)
	Question agreed to.

RESIDENTIAL HOME CLOSURES

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Anne Milton.)

Gavin Shuker: Social care is changing. All parties in this House are rightly committed to giving disabled people more choice and control over where and how they live.
	If I were to acquire a serious disability, I would hope to spend as long as possible in my own home. I would hope that the care system would provide me with high quality care that allowed me to enjoy a good quality of life close to my friends and family. That is an increasingly normal model, but it has not always been that way.
	For decades, it was conventional for most severely disabled people to move into a residential home. Today, some disabled people prefer to live in a residential home where they can be part of a community of staff, relatives and other residents. There will always be some people whose condition is severe enough to rule out other options of care.
	Residential home closures, whatever the motivation behind them, pull apart existing communities. They are people’s homes. It may be that many disabled people wish to move from their existing setting, but others do not.
	Robert Holmes is 39. I met his mother, Grace, two months ago when out knocking on doors in my constituency. She told me about the excellent quality of care that Robert, who has cerebral palsy, receives at Scope’s residential home, Hampton House in Northampton.
	Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3)).
	Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Anne Milton.)

Gavin Shuker: Grace also told me of Scope’s proposals to close Hampton House and relocate the residents apart from one another. She said:
	“All of the residents there are like brothers and sisters to Robert—and some have been there for 39 years. The staff are brilliant. Even when residents go to hospital they have a staff member with them 24-7…I felt happy knowing that if anything happened to me Robert was in a place where he was loved and cared for, but now I worry constantly about it.”
	Ann and Richard Fensome are also my constituents in Luton South. Their daughter, Joanne, is also 39. Ann and Richard report that Joanne, who has cerebral palsy and is severely disabled, does not wish to move from Wakes Hall in Essex—another Scope home earmarked for closure. They are not alone, and I thank the families who have taken time to contact my office to share their personal and emotional experiences of support for their loved ones at this time.
	Scope has proposed to close eight residential homes and modify another three in the coming years, but it is not alone in pursuing such proposals. We are seeing the same thing happen with the Guinness Partnership, Home Farm Trust and other smaller charities who feel that residential homes are no longer in step with the Government’s decision and direction on care provision. This debate is important because we must ask: what
	about the voice of those disabled people who wish to live in such facilities, but who lose that right because of home closures? What happens when these homes no longer provide the same kind of care they would once have done? Who ultimately steps in?
	I do not have one of the proposed home closures in my constituency, but I easily found families who will be profoundly affected by Scope’s decision, and in that sense I suspect that every Member in this place will be affected in some way. The two families I spoke of earlier came to Parliament last month to lobby MPs along with Labour’s parliamentary candidate for Northampton North and former Member of this House, Sally Keeble. She has been tireless in her work on this issue, but she has not been alone. Indeed, I have spoken to a number of Members from across the House who have raised their concerns directly with me.
	The hon. Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis), who is in his place, has challenged the decision to consult on shutting Hampton House in his constituency. The hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) has shared her concerns with me about the decision to consult on the closure of Wakes Hall in the nearby constituency of the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), and I know that she spoke at a lobby on that issue last month. The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans) and former Deputy Speaker spoke with me about his concerns for the residents affected. In my constituency office in Luton, Grace Holmes and the Fensomes highly praised Scope’s approach to care. They spoke of the quality of support that their children receive, and the relationships that they have built with the staff over the years. As an example of their gratitude for the charity’s work, they shared how they have actively supported Scope for a number of years. Perhaps that is why they are so disappointed by Scope’s proposals. They raised concerns with me about the consultation process, the upset it was causing residents, and a number of process issues. At the core of their argument, however, was the issue of choice.
	Peter Walker, Scope’s regional director, recently told a local newspaper that the charity was looking to close care homes such as these,
	“because we don’t think this kind of old-fashioned care home offers disabled people the kind of say that everyone else has over where they live, who they live with and how their money is spent”.
	Scope states that the closures are necessary in order to comply with the direction of Government policy, which is to encourage those with physical and learning difficulties to enjoy independent living and choice about the care they receive. I have no reason to doubt that assertion, and that Scope’s desire is to give future service users an experience that reflects their expectations. I am fully supportive of the move towards more independent living for those who believe that they will be able to lead better lives in that way. My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall), the shadow Minister for care and older people, has similarly expressed her support for those laudable aims in correspondence with Scope’s chief executive, but for Joanne and Robert, who do not wish to move, their choice is not being enhanced; it is being taken away. I understand that they are among the most vulnerable of Scope’s clients. They are the people that the charity was set up to care for. For them, round-the-clock care does not come towards the end of their lives, and they will continue to need such care for decades to come.
	The Department of Health website looks towards a new system under the Care Act 2014 that will be
	“built around each person—what they need, how they can best be cared for, and what they want.”
	The tone is very purposely set to encourage patients to have more confidence in the choices available to them, yet the most important expression of choice is that of my constituents—their choice is to stay in the home that they know and love, and they want their families to be assured that their loved ones continue to receive good quality care by those whom they trust.
	Scope has made efforts to bring residents on board with its new strategy. Hampton House residents have had the opportunity to visit the type of independent housing that Scope envisages—small clusters of individual properties. Although that will appeal to some, the overwhelming feedback was concern. They fear that the move will result in the residents becoming more isolated, and in a loss of the easy mobility and companionship that they currently enjoy. The move will appeal to some, but we should take note of that overwhelming feedback.
	I would appreciate the following response from the Minister. First, I should like him to review that broad issue and report to the House. The review should set out what work the Government have done on the changing culture—the shift from residential care home settings for disabled people while at the same time preserving the rights and choices of people such as Joanne and Robert to stay in residential home settings.
	If the care home residents were tenants in the housing market, they would have tenure rights, exercisable through the courts. As customers of a business or clients of a charity, they can lose their homes on the whim of a change in strategy by the organisation. That could happen even in the case of Hampton House, where one resident has lived for some 39 years.
	The review should examine the issue of choice. Questions have been raised about the working of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, and about the exercising of choice by people who have profound learning difficulties. Who is best able to interpret and assist in their choices: the charity that provides their accommodation or their family members?
	The review should examine the accountability of charities and the private sector. If those homes were run in the public sector, there would be a statutory requirement for public consultation. The issues and information would be public, and the results would be open to legal challenge. In the case of Hampton House, Scope has said there will be a consultation, but it has told family members verbally that that is unlikely to change the decision to close the home. The decision is not open to scrutiny or challenge in the same way.
	The review should also examine a national framework of safeguards. People with very complex needs require security in their housing and care arrangements throughout their lifetime, which may extend well beyond the lives of their parents or other close relatives. We know that age is a key factor in the argument. Some charities say that younger disabled people want to live independently and, anecdotally, I have been told that more independent living is a trend that is better reflected among some younger disabled people. However, that leaves us with a challenge, particularly for some older disabled people, such as those in their 40s or 50s. In some cases, the intentional communities in which they live have been
	their homes for all their adult lives. The Government should examine whether their sectoral needs are being well met, and what safeguards should be appropriately awarded to them.
	Will the Minister review Scope’s proposed consultation and examine whether more can be done to protect the rights of disabled people who wish to live in these residential settings right now? Indeed, a number of families, accepting Scope’s position that it does not wish to continue actively supporting these institutions, ask whether facilities could be transferred to another charity to run. That would provide continuity of service. I understand that Scope’s position is that it is not an economic concern that has led it to take this route of consultation and closing homes, so it is credible to believe that another organisation could absorb them.
	I do not doubt the Minister’s sincerity in seeking to move to a care system where disabled people have greater choice, voice and control over their own lives. It would, however, be the greatest of ironies if, in undertaking such a shift, we were to leave a generation or a group of severely disabled people behind.

Michael Ellis: I congratulate the hon. Member for Luton South (Gavin Shuker) on securing this debate. I am grateful to him, and to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for permitting me to contribute to this important Adjournment debate, as the regular proceedings do not normally allow for that. The hon. Gentleman spoke very well and advocated his position very effectively. I agree with much of what he said.
	I admire Scope, as I am sure the hon. Member for Luton South does. It is an excellent charity and its staff do wonderful work. They clearly care about the people in their charge, for whom they are duty bound to care. Hampton House, in my constituency, should not close. It should not close for the very reason that it is not an institution, but a home for more than a dozen people. We are told that this is not about economics, Government policy or local authority decisions; it is a policy shift. There has been a decision to move away from a residential setting to more of a care home setting. This may well work in many cases—the hon. Gentleman alluded to them—especially for those who are disabled who are entering this kind of care arrangement, but it does not work, and is not working, for those who have lived in Hampton House in my constituency for literally decades, and in one case nearly four decades.
	In the very short time allowed to me in this instance, I want to put on record my suggestion that we work together with Scope to find an alternative to its proposal to close Hampton House, and ask it to please look again and please think again. Those who have lived there for decades are firmly wedded to its atmosphere, staff and ambience—to everything about home—as you or I, Madam Deputy Speaker, would be. There must be alternatives.

John Howell: The point is that the sense of community is being destroyed. Whatever arrangement we come to with Scope, we have to find a way of keeping that sense of community for the people who want to keep it.

Michael Ellis: I agree: it is a sense of community and a sense of belonging. It is very easy for those outside that community to think that this is an institution that needs change—that we need to modernise and move forward. There may be—indeed, there is—room for such modernisation and moving forward in many cases, but not in every case and not by taking a broad-brush approach. There must be alternatives. I would respectfully ask Scope to work with us across the political divide and with the residents. Let us find an alternative.

Norman Lamb: I thank the hon. Member for Luton South (Gavin Shuker) for securing this debate and for speaking in a reasonable tone about issues of enormous concern to some of his constituents. I very much noted the fact that they have told him that they have experienced good care. They regard the care home as their home. In a way, that demonstrates the conflict that sometimes arises, in that there is a general trend towards more people wanting to live in their own communities with support, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said. He described his sense that he would want to remain in his own home were he to be disabled, but at the same time there are those who regard a care home as their home and they have no desire to change that. It is right to recognise that that conflict exists, and it creates a dilemma.
	The hon. Gentleman suggested that, in a way, Scope was closing the home because of Government policy. Government policy, as enshrined in the Care Act 2014, is to put people in charge—to focus on well-being, which is the central theme of the Care Act. As far as possible, it should be the individual who determines where they want to be. I have spoken to Richard Hawkes, the chief executive of Scope. Scope is very clear that this is its decision: it wants to do it and is doing so for what it regards as a good purpose. However, the Government’s focus is simply on the individual—on ensuring that, as far as possible, we enable people to make the decision that is right for them, recognising, however, the conflict that can arise.
	Care homes often look after some very frail people, but also individuals with quite complex needs. It is understandable and reasonable that, should there be a possibility of a care home closing, residents and their families will be extremely concerned about the future, particularly with the upheaval of having to move. It will inevitably be an unsettling and potentially stressful time. The decision to close a care home voluntarily is taken by the owner or operator—either the local council, where that remains the case, or, if it is an independent home, the proprietor, whether the home is in the private or the voluntary sector. Of the approximately 17,000 care and nursing homes in England these days, over 90% are in the independent sector—that has been the case for many years—and are owned and operated by private companies or charitable and voluntary sector organisations such as Scope.
	Homes may close for a variety of reasons, including lack of financial viability and/or insufficient demand for places, retirement of the owners, the sale of premises for alternative use and even the de-registration of unsuitable or unsafe services as a result of the Care Quality Commission’s intervention. In the case of Scope, the organisation is looking to redesign the services it provides
	to support people. It is important that people who need care and support are accommodated in appropriate settings that are based, critically, on their choice as far as possible. It is clearly not desirable if someone has to move from a care home where they are settled and happy and where their needs are being met.
	Local authorities have a responsibility, through good commissioning strategies, to ensure a healthy local care home sector. Through the Care Act 2014, which will come into force next April, we are giving local authorities a core duty to promote their local care market, with a particular focus on ensuring diversity, quality and sustainability. Importantly, they should ensure that sufficient high-quality services are available to meet the needs of individuals in their local area. However, although local authorities should make all reasonable efforts to ensure that good care homes remain viable and stay open, there will be situations where homes have to close or where the proprietors choose to close them. We have to face this. What is most important is that any decision to close a home should be handled sensitively and appropriately. It is essential that person-centred care planning identifies the best possible alternative for each individual. Adequate time should be allowed for the process, so that residents and their relatives can be properly involved and be given plenty of time to make decisions and arrangements in a way that minimises stress.
	I must emphasise that, should a home have to close, local authorities have a statutory duty to arrange suitable alternative accommodation for those residents who are assessed as being in need of residential care, so it should never be the case that someone who needs residential care will not be provided with it. I fully appreciate, however, that that does not reassure someone who regards a particular building and set of care workers as their home and their home environment.
	I am aware that some providers of residential care for disabled people—including the charity for disabled people, Scope—are reviewing their residential services and are consulting users of services and their families. I appreciate, as I have said, that this can be an extraordinarily worrying time and a stressful situation both for the people in those homes and for their families. Parents of adult disabled people are often themselves quite elderly, which can cause additional stress. The hon. Gentleman touched on that when he talked about his constituent. I would encourage the residents and their families fully to engage with the consultation process and ensure that their views are taken into account.
	Scope has given an assurance to the Department of Health that it is committed to ensuring that all users of its services who may be affected are properly consulted and supported. It has promised to provide any individual who needs it with advocacy so that every resident of its homes can understand what the proposals mean for them and can make it clear what they want for the future. Richard Hawkes told me that Scope has even provided care workers to come down to Parliament to support people who were lobbying their MPs against the closures. It says that it has tried to be as reasonable as possible. This process will not, Scope says, be rushed or hurried. It has informed the Department that the consultation will take place over a period of three years.
	Scope runs many other care homes that will remain open. There is a particular focus on the larger care homes, but there are also many smaller care homes that
	it intends to keep open—eight of them, as I think the hon. Gentleman mentioned. Scope appreciates that many residents are happy in its homes, but has to face the fact that there is a lessening demand for large, traditional residential care services.
	Richard Hawkes as chief executive, made the point to me that more people are taking on personal budgets—a concept substantially and rightly developed under the previous Government and one that is continued by this Government and now legislated for in the Care Act 2014. The concept was designed to put the individual in charge, so that they can determine how the money available for their care is spent to meet their particular priorities. As people take on personal budgets, according to Richard Hawkes, they are increasingly voting with their feet and choosing not to go into larger care homes, which often have long corridors, shared bathrooms and so forth. They are increasingly choosing to remain in supported living if possible with a package of care built around their individual needs. Scope is reviewing its services now, so that decisions can be made and, if need be, homes closed in a controlled, planned manner before vacancy levels make them unviable.
	Richard Hawkes also told me about an experience that Scope has been through in Southampton. It proposed to close a care home, leading to the same totally legitimate anxieties and concerns. It went through the process and all the individuals in the home have been relocated in circumstances that suit those individuals, with their having a central say in where they are going to go. He tells me—I base my comments just on what he says—that all now appear to be happier with their new circumstances and are finding a new sense of freedom that they did not experience in the past. Although these changes to circumstances can be traumatic and difficult, the end-result, as demonstrated in the experience of Southampton, can sometimes be a good one for the individuals involved. I realise, though, that elderly parents in particular will sometimes find that quite hard to recognise.
	It is worth taking a moment to look at the history of this issue. Many traditional, large residential care homes are quite old now. A number of Scope’s homes date back to the 1970s. They were developed in—and designed to suit the needs and demands of—a different era. By modern standards, they lack privacy, and they do not allow residents the degree of freedom, choice and control that we rightly expect and demand nowadays. As a result, many Scope homes are under-occupied. The increasing availability of new models and types of care, support and accommodation means that traditional large care homes are no longer the default or only option when it comes to providing care and support for people with disabilities.
	Innovations and developments in supported living, and the various types of housing with care that are available these days, offer disabled people far more choice than they ever had in the past, and control over their lives. I am sure that, ultimately, we should all welcome that. Scope has informed us that, owing to the newer options that have become available, local authorities do not automatically make routine new placements in residential care, and it expects the number of empty places in its older homes to continue to rise. In the long term, it can only be a good thing that people have so many more choices when it comes to the care that is
	available to them, but, as I have said, I entirely appreciate that, as with any change, the process is not without its short-term challenges.
	The Government want to give people more control over their health and social care services, and, therefore, over their lives. That is the central ambition of the Care Act. Personalisation means building support around individuals and providing more choice, control and flexibility in the way in which they receive care and support, regardless of the setting in which they receive it. There is no central policy, incidentally, that says care homes are bad: absolutely not. It is a question of what is right for the individual involved.
	The Care Act provides a new legislative focus on personalisation, increasing opportunities for greater choice, control and independence, so that people can choose the services that are best suited to meet their care and support needs. The Act provides that adults who are eligible for care and support must receive services that
	meet their individual needs. It also requires that they must be involved in care planning. Some, of course, will need and benefit from residential care. There will always be an important job for care homes to do. However, for others a different model of care may now be more appropriate to their needs, and, most importantly, to their aspirations and desire to lead the sort of independent life that all the rest of us take for granted.
	We are committed to ensuring that people who wish and are able to live in their communities are given the support that they need in order to do so. Everyone, especially younger adults—including those with a learning disability—should have the opportunity to make informed choices about where and with whom they live, and to have greater choice and control over their lives and support to help them to lead a fulfilling life of their own.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.